In re Marriage of Jones, 2023 IL App (2d) 220342-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Jones, No. 2-22-0342, 2023 IL App (2d) 220342‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 31, 2023). Petitioner‑Appellant: Jeffrey T. Jones. Respondent‑Appellee: Cynthia J. Jones (n/k/a Cynthia Perkins).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the emancipation of the eldest child (P.J.) constituted a “substantial change in circumstances” when the dissolution judgment already contemplated emancipation and provided adjustment mechanics.
2. Whether the trial court erred by not applying the current §505 income‑shares guidelines to reduce base child support and by instead applying the dissolution judgment’s formula for “additional income over base.”
3. Whether the court properly calculated support and set a retroactive effective date for the modification.

- Holding / Outcome
The Second District affirmed. The court held that the child’s emancipation did not constitute an unanticipated substantial change in circumstances because the dissolution judgment expressly contemplated emancipation and provided adjustment provisions. The trial court did not err in applying the judgment’s agreed formula rather than the later §505 income‑shares model, nor in its calculation and chosen retroactive date (the trial court’s modification date challenged by petitioner).

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
• Contractual intent governs: the dissolution judgment expressly provided (1) petitioner’s base income/net and base child support, (2) a specified percentage (27.1%) of any “additional income over base” while supporting four children, with that percentage to be “adjusted upon the emancipation of each of the parties’ children,” and (3) an emancipation clause defining events that terminate support. Because the judgment anticipated emancipation and described adjustment methodology, emancipation was not a novel, substantial change warranting reclassification under current guidelines.
• No mandatory retroactive application of later guidelines: parties may fix post‑dissolution allocation mechanisms in the judgment; a later statutory guideline does not automatically displace an express contractual scheme.
• Procedural posture: the appellate court upheld the trial court’s evidentiary handling (including consideration of affidavits and the parties’ stipulations), declining to find reversible error in the modification calculations or retroactivity ruling.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
• Draft dissolution judgments with clear, detailed formulas for post‑emancipation adjustments (specify how base support and “additional income” are to be treated, and provide sample calculations).
• If a party wants future guideline recalculation, expressly reserve or require application of the then‑current §505 income‑shares model.
• Include explicit retroactivity provisions and rules for financial affidavits (timing, currency) to avoid disputes.
• Preserve objections and ensure client appearance and up‑to‑date financial affidavits at modification hearings — courts may proceed on stipulated terms and decline to re‑calculate under new statutory models when the judgment controls.