In re Marriage of Lamb, 2025 IL App (4th) 241134-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Lamb, 2025 IL App (4th) 241134‑U. Petitioner‑Appellee: Rachel L. Lamb. Respondent‑Appellant: Thad A. Lamb. Appeal from Greene County Circuit Court (No. 16D39).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether a trial court may modify an agreed divorce decree that waived child support to establish child support under 750 ILCS 5/510(a)(1) without a showing of a substantial change in circumstances.
2) What proof is required to establish the requisite “substantial change” when the parties previously agreed to waive support and executed a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that included a waiver of further discovery.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s August 2024 order establishing child support, holding the modification was against the manifest weight of the evidence because Petitioner failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances since entry of the 2017 decree.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory standard: Modification/establishment of child support after a decree that addressed support requires a showing of a substantial change in circumstances under section 510(a)(1).
- Burden of proof: The party seeking modification bears the burden to demonstrate the change.
- Evidentiary deficiency: Rachel relied on more recent payroll/W‑2 records and Thad’s testimony about bonuses and deposits (including a substantial 2023 bonus), but she did not introduce or elicit evidence of Thad’s income at or before the 2017 decree (pre‑2019 income was absent). Without a baseline showing what Thad earned when the waiver was agreed, the court could not determine whether later earnings constituted a substantial change.
- Waiver/Discovery context: The MSA contained a waiver of further discovery; Rachel had previously obtained employer records via Rule 204 subpoena and later obtained 2019–2024 records. Nevertheless, the appellate court emphasized that the record lacked evidence comparing present income to the income at the time of the divorce, and the trial court’s factual finding was not supported by the record.

- Practice implications (concise)
- To seek modification of a child‑support waiver, lawyers must establish a clear baseline of the parties’ financial circumstances at the time of the decree (W‑2s, tax returns, payroll, employer confirmations).
- When alleging substantial change from bonuses or intermittent payments, present multi‑year documentation showing the pattern pre‑ and post‑decree and explain treatment of one‑time deposits (rebates, refunds) vs. recurring income.
- If the MSA contains discovery waivers, preserve or secure pre‑decree evidence before prove‑up; use Rule 204 subpoenas early and ensure responsive documents are in the record.
- Obtain a complete transcript/record of the prove‑up hearing and base modification proof on admissible, comparative financial evidence—failure to do so risks reversal as against manifest weight.