In re Marriage of Lesniak, 2019 IL App (2d) 181041-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Lesniak, No. 2-18-1041, 2019 IL App (2d) 181041-U (Order filed Dec. 17, 2019) (Rule 23—nonprecedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Erin M. Lesniak (mother). Respondent-Appellant: Jeffrey W. Lesniak (father).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the father established a “substantial change in circumstances” to warrant modification of child support under 750 ILCS 5/510(a).
- Whether a substantial increase in parenting time/overnights (post‑dissolution) can alone constitute such a change, especially in light of Public Act 99‑764 and §510(a)’s prohibition against relying solely on the statutory amendment.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court vacated the trial court’s directed finding for the mother and remanded. It held the father had presented a prima facie case of a substantial change in circumstances based on the substantial increase in overnight parenting time (from ~17 nights/year to 156 nights/year, ~5% → ~43%).

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard: directed‑finding motions in bench trials are reviewed de novo; a directed finding is improper if plaintiff (here, the petitioner for modification) makes a prima facie showing on each element.
- Child support modification is two‑step: (1) show substantial change in circumstances; (2) apply statutory factors to compute a new amount. A significant change in custodial arrangements alone can be sufficient to establish a substantial change (citing In re Marriage of Izzo and earlier precedent).
- §510(a) bars using the enactment of Public Act 99‑764 itself as the basis for modification, but it does not bar modifications grounded in actual factual changes (e.g., substantial increase in parenting time). The court distinguished Salvatore (where the movant relied solely on the statute change) and followed Izzo (parenting‑time increase sufficed).

5) Practice implications for family-law practitioners
- When seeking a support modification, quantify custodial/overnight changes precisely — percentages and nights/year are persuasive.
- Do not conflate reliance on statutory amendments with factual changes; courts will accept increased parenting time as an independent basis even where prior orders predate PA 99‑764.
- Support modification petitions with contemporaneous financial affidavits and evidence of increased costs tied to the increased parenting time (food, clothing, activities).
- If opposing, promptly present evidence of prior agreements (e.g., right of first refusal, contemplated schedule fluctuations) and argue lack of materiality; be prepared to oppose/renew directed‑finding motions.
- Note: decision is Rule 23 and nonprecedential — persuasive but not binding precedent.