In re Marriage of Koyak, 2019 IL App (3d) 170642-U

In re Marriage of Koyak, 2019 IL App (3d) 170642‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. Jan. 11, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential)

1) Case & parties
- Jay P. Koyak (petitioner/appellant) v. Jennifer E. Koyak (respondent/appellee). Post‑dissolution dispute over whether amounts Jay paid under the Marital Separation Agreement (MSA) were modifiable child support or non‑modifiable property settlement; whether income should be imputed to Jay from funds paid to his future spouse; and whether any modification should be retroactive.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the MSA language concerning mortgage/utilities constituted an ambiguous term and, if so, whether those payments were a non‑modifiable property settlement or modifiable child support.
- Whether the trial court properly imputed income to Jay based on sums paid by his appraisal business directly to Jay’s current spouse.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying retroactive application of modified child support.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. It held the MSA was ambiguous; the trial court properly treated the mortgage/expense obligation as a non‑modifiable property settlement; it did not abuse its discretion imputing income to Jay from business funds paid to his spouse; and it did not abuse its discretion in denying retroactivity of the child‑support modification.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Ambiguity and parol evidence: The court found the MSA ambiguous because Article V (real property provisions including transfer restrictions, termination on child’s graduation, prohibition on sale, and specific dollar caps) and Article VII (labelled “Custody, Visitation, and Child Support” but stating “in lieu of direct child support”) could be read inconsistently. Because ambiguity existed, the trial court permissibly considered extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent and bargaining context.
- Property settlement characterization: The nature, duration, and contingencies of the mortgage provision (transfer‑on‑graduation, restrictions on sale, expectation of a capped mortgage balance) supported the trial court’s conclusion these payments were part of a property settlement rather than periodic child support subject to modification.
- Income imputation: The court affirmed imputing income to Jay where business funds flowed to his (later) spouse and where her subsequent business receipts were derived entirely from Jay’s former business—treating those payments as available supportable resources to Jay for child‑support computation.
- Retroactivity: The trial court’s denial of retroactive application was within its discretion.

5) Practice implications for family attorneys
- Draft separation agreements explicitly: label payments clearly (child support vs. property settlement), state modifiability, duration, contingencies, and include an integration clause to reduce ambiguity.
- Where parties intend payments “in lieu of” support, include clear phrasing that they are non‑modifiable property settlement (or expressly modifiable) to avoid later parol‑evidence disputes.
- Be alert to income‑shifting to third parties/spouses: document business payments and commercial justification; if arguing modification, develop evidence of actual income and any disguised transfers.
- If seeking retroactivity, prepare to prove concealment or other equitable grounds—trial courts have broad discretion.
- Remember: Rule 23 order — persuasive but not binding precedent.