In re Marriage of Moore, 2021 IL App (5th) 190312-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Moore, 2021 IL App (5th) 190312‑U. Petitioner‑Appellee: Scott E. Moore. Respondent‑Appellant: Sherri A. Moore.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding contribution toward a nonminor child’s college expenses.
2. Whether the court properly considered and imputed income to a parent who is unemployed or underemployed by choice.
3. Whether evidence regarding transferability of Post‑9/11 GI Bill benefits was admissible and/or could be ordered by the court.

- Holding/outcome
The Fifth District affirmed the trial court’s February 4, 2019 order granting Scott’s petition for educational expenses for the parties’ adult daughter. The appellate court found no error in the trial court’s credibility findings, imputation of income to Sherri, or ultimate award.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The appellate court applied the familiar abuse‑of‑discretion standard to the trial court’s decision regarding educational expenses and imputation of income. The trial court’s credibility determinations — that Scott’s evidence of expenses and income was credible and that Sherri was substantially underemployed by choice — were supported by the record (financial affidavits, pay records, testimony that Sherri had voluntary unemployment, pension income, and transferable GI Bill benefits she declined to transfer). The court found Sherri failed to present credible evidence justifying her unemployment or to demonstrate inability to contribute. The trial judge permissibly considered the existence and possible transfer of GI Bill benefits as factual evidence of Sherri’s ability to assist, but correctly recognized he lacked statutory authority to order the transfer of federal education benefits. Because the trial court’s findings were supported by evidence and within its discretion, the appellate court declined to disturb them.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Voluntary underemployment: courts will impute income where a parent chooses unemployment or underemployment without credible justification; introduce contemporaneous proof of job searches, medical evidence, and realistic earning capacity if contesting imputation.
- Document expenses: thorough, substantiated proof of the child’s reasonable college costs and of the paying parent’s payments strengthens a petition.
- GI Bill/Federal benefits: while a court may consider whether federal benefits are available and could reduce a parent’s financial burden, courts likely cannot compel federal benefit transfers — address transferability strategically (client consent, administrative avenues).
- Record and credibility: appellate review defers to trial court credibility findings; present clear, consistent financial affidavits and live testimony to preserve issues for appeal.
- Rule 23 note: decision filed under Rule 23 (nonprecedential), but useful persuasive guidance on imputation and educational‑expense practice.