In re Marriage of Kuceba, 2019 IL App (2d) 170622-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Kuceba, No. 2-17-0622, 2019 IL App (2d) 170622‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 6, 2019) (Rule 23 order — non‑precedential). Petitioner/Appellee: Ineza Kuceba. Respondent/Appellant: Arthur Kuceba.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court erred in finding Arthur in contempt for failing to pay his half of the child’s uncovered medical expenses and in imposing an indefinite incarceration/sentence with a purge amount; 2) whether the trial court abused discretion in discovery rulings and in barring recovery for expenses lacking proof of payment; 3) whether the trial court improperly included the son’s medical insurance premiums in the judgment where premiums arguably were covered by child support; 4) whether the trial court erred in imputing income to Arthur ($60,000–$65,000) and made inconsistent findings about his employment in ruling on educational‑expense contribution.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s contempt finding, its sentencing structure (indefinite incarceration tied to purge), its modification of discovery rulings, and its imputation of income. The court reversed only the inclusion of the son’s medical insurance premiums in the judgment and otherwise affirmed as modified.

- Significant legal reasoning
The trial court credited testimony and circumstantial evidence that Arthur refused to reimburse unreimbursed medical, dental, optical and education expenses and that original proofs of payment had been tendered to him (and discarded). The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings. Civil contempt (and a purge condition) was treated as remedial and permissible where contemnor could purge by paying. The court found no inconsistent findings about employment: the imputed income was supported by the record and within the trial court’s discretion. However, the court recognized that including insurance premium payments that were already encompassed by child‑support obligations constituted legal error and remanded that part.

- Practice implications for family lawyers (Illinois)
- Preserve and produce contemporaneous proof of payment (receipts, bank records, EOBs); failure can lead to bar on recovery.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to find civil contempt and impose a purge amount/indefinite incarceration to coerce compliance; appellate courts defer to credibility findings.
- Carefully plead and litigate whether insurance premiums are separate reimbursable obligations or subsumed by child support/other orders.
- Be prepared to support income imputation with record evidence; inconsistent factual claims about employment will be resolved against the party lacking documentation.
- Note: this is a Rule 23, non‑precedential decision — persuasive but not binding.