In re Marriage of Kellerman, 2019 IL App (2d) 190219-U

In re Marriage of Kellerman, 2019 IL App (2d) 190219-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kellerman, No. 2-19-0219 (2d Dist. Nov. 15, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Tami R. Kellerman. Respondent-Appellant: Michael B. Kellerman. Divorce judgment entered Jan. 9, 2015; three children (one college‑age son, Noah).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred by (a) denying respondent’s petition to hold petitioner in indirect civil contempt for allegedly omitting $1,000/month from her financial affidavit and denying that income in court; (b) suspending oral argument and ordering written briefs on a motion to reconsider (due‑process claim); and (c) allocating 70% of the child’s college expenses to respondent (abuse of discretion / manifest weight).

3. Holding/outcome
- Appeal affirmed. Trial court: denied contempt petition; permitted written rather than oral argument; ordered total college costs of $12,471 with respondent paying 70% ($8,729) and petitioner 30% ($3,741). Appellate court affirmed each ruling.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Civil contempt: A civil contempt proceeding is designed to compel compliance with an existing court order. Because Michael did not point to an order that petitioner violated or that required compliance, the contempt petition was properly denied.
- Due process / oral argument: Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, not an absolute right to oral argument. The court permissibly suspended oral argument and required written submissions where issues were not complex and the record was sufficient.
- Educational expenses & discretion: Trial court reviewed financial affidavits, found a large income disparity (Michael’s year‑to‑date income ≈ $164,697; Tami’s reported earnings ≈ $50,544 plus $1,240/month child support), questioned the veracity of Michael’s claimed deficit given his discretionary spending, and expressly stated it included the $1,000 boyfriend contribution. Appellate court found no basis to impute additional income (e.g., adult son’s rent contribution) and no abuse of discretion in the 70/30 allocation.

5. Practice implications
- Do not seek civil contempt to punish or expose alleged hiding of income unless there is an existing court order to be enforced; use contempt only to compel compliance with a prior directive.
- Preserve the record: include and authenticate financial affidavits and transcripts; get clear trial findings about income, imputation, and the treatment of third‑party contributions.
- Be prepared to justify imputations of income with fact and authority (adult housemate contributions and third‑party support are not automatically income).
- Courts have broad discretion on educational expense allocation and procedural modes (oral vs. written argument); challenge discretionary rulings only where findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence.