In re Marriage of Moehring, 2025 IL App (2d) 240071-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Moehring, 2025 IL App (2d) 240071-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Mar. 12, 2025) (Rule 23(b) order, non‑precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Brendan H. Moehring. Respondent-Appellant: Ann L. Moehring.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly found Ann in contempt for failing to pay college-related expenses (summer 2022 and fall 2022) per the divorce judgment allocating college expenses one‑third to each parent and one‑third to the child.
- Whether the trial court correctly calculated the purge amount (including spring 2023 amounts).
- Whether Ann was entitled to credit for a March 2022 tuition refund to the child.
- Whether parental access to the adult child’s academic records required signed consent forms from all parties.

3) Holding/outcome (short)
- Affirmed in part; reversed in part; vacated and remanded in part.
- Trial court did not err finding contempt for failure to pay summer 2022 tuition (willful refusal).
- Trial court erred in finding contempt for fall 2022 tuition and expenses (Ann paid $9,881.34 and genuine dispute existed).
- Trial court erred by including spring 2023 amounts in the purge calculation.
- Trial court did not err refusing to credit Ann for the $4,334 refund (applied to child’s share).
- Trial court erred by not requiring consent forms for parental access to the child’s grades.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Contempt requires a willful failure to obey a court order. The appellate court upheld contempt for summer 2022 because Ann unreasonably refused to pay her court‑ordered share without a legally sufficient excuse (her argument she had “already paid” for prior classes did not excuse paying for summer classes).
- For fall 2022, the court found Ann had made substantial payments after the semester and there was a legitimate dispute about what amounts were owed (tuition vs. living expenses and timing of allocation), so contempt was improper.
- Purge calculations must be limited to obligations already due and provable at the time of contempt; including future semester obligations (spring 2023) was error.
- The $4,334 ACH refund to the student was applied to the student’s share; no credit to Ann.
- Access to college records and grades implicates the need for proper consent/documentation; the appellate court required signed consent forms by all parties to govern access.

5) Practice implications (practical takeaways for attorneys)
- Draft college‑expense provisions with specificity: define “tuition,” “fees,” “living expenses,” timing, documentation required, handling of refunds/credits, repeat/retake course treatment, and dispute resolution.
- Before seeking contempt, ensure the client’s nonpayment is clearly willful and amounts due are provable; avoid pursuing contempt where payments/credits are disputed.
- When seeking purge amounts, limit to past‑due, documented obligations (not speculative future semesters).
- Preserve and produce contemporaneous records (invoices, refunds, communications, bank transfers); require students to sign FERPA/consent forms at outset.
- Consider obtaining court directions for handling refunds, credits, and parental access to student records to prevent repeat disputes.