In re Marriage of Moriarty, 2024 IL App (1st) 230270

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Moriarty, 2024 IL App (1st) 230270 (1st Dist., March 29, 2024).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Rhonda V. Moriarty, n/k/a Rhonda Jensen‑Moriarty. Respondent‑Appellee: Brad L. Moriarty.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a petition under 750 ILCS 5/513.5(a) (non‑minor disabled child support) may be timely filed after a child has reached majority/emancipated if the child’s disabling condition arose while the child was still “eligible for support” under sections 505 or 513.
- Interaction between the statutory right to support for a non‑minor with a disability and language in a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that terminates child support upon emancipation.

3. Holding / outcome
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded. The trial court erred in concluding the petition was untimely solely because the child was over 19 and had graduated high school at the time of filing.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- This was a case of first impression on the timing issue. The court applied settled rules of statutory and contract interpretation: give effect to the plain language of the statute and the written MSA. The decisive statutory provision is section 513.5(a), which authorizes awards for a “non‑minor child with a disability” who “has attained majority [but] is mentally or physically disabled and not otherwise emancipated,” and requires that the disability “arose while the child was eligible for support under Section 505 or 513.”
- The appellate court concluded the trial judge misinterpreted and applied the statute by treating post‑majority status alone as a bar. Instead, the statutory inquiry focuses on whether the disability arose while the child was eligible for support (i.e., during minority), and whether the child currently meets the statutory definition of disabled and not otherwise emancipated. Here, the record showed disability onset in childhood (diagnosed at age six) and substantial evidence of ongoing functional limitations (IEPs, SSA disability finding, treating psychiatrist testimony), so the statutory timing requirement was met and the dismissal for untimeliness was improper.
- The court required remand for consideration of whether the child satisfies the Act’s disability and emancipation criteria and, if so, the appropriate relief.

5. Practice implications
- Do not assume statutory remedies under 513.5 are foreclosed by post‑majority status or MSA termination language. If disability onset occurred while the child was eligible for support, a 513.5 petition can be viable even if filed after emancipation.
- Build the record on onset and functional limitations (IEPs, neuropsych reports, treating physicians, SSA determinations, employment history, daily living deficits). Address MSA termination clauses by arguing the statute’s conditions control the availability of adult‑disabled support.
- For respondents, focus on (a) whether the disability truly arose while the child was eligible for support, (b) whether the child is “otherwise emancipated,” and (c) contract language in the MSA. Trial courts retain discretion on amount/necessity; however, questions of statutory interpretation will be reviewed de novo.