In re Marriage of Mundschenk, 2019 IL App (2d) 180624-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Mundschenk, 2019 IL App (2d) 180624-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. May 20, 2019) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellant: Brad D. Mundschenk. Respondent-Appellee: Nancy B. Mundschenk.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the father to contribute to a child’s college expenses where the marital settlement agreement (MSA) required joint decision-making on college choice and the custodial parent allegedly failed to consult. 2) Whether the court erred by not requiring use of a custodial account or by failing to establish the student’s exact out‑of‑pocket costs. 3) Whether the court improperly ignored the father’s asserted need to save for retirement and/or lacked a factual basis for finding he could pay.

- Holding / outcome
Affirmed. The appellate court held the father failed to meet his burden on appeal (in part because the record was incomplete) and could not show the trial court abused its discretion in awarding educational expenses and denying the motion to reconsider.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Foutch rule: because the record omitted the hearing transcript on the motion to reconsider and exhibits (including the full MSA), appellate review presumes the trial court’s ruling had a sufficient factual and legal basis; doubts from an incomplete record resolve against the appellant.
- Contract interpretation: the court treated the MSA provisions as independent promises. Absent explicit language making joint consultation a condition precedent to funding, noncompliance with the consultation clause did not automatically bar enforcement of the funding clause. Conditions precedent are disfavored; ambiguity is construed to avoid forfeiture.
- Abuse-of-discretion standard governs educational-expense awards. Trial court credibility findings (e.g., disbelief of father’s retirement-saving claim) and findings about ability to pay (based on income history and past child-support payments) were not disturbed given the incomplete record.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Preserve a complete record: include full MSA, exhibits, and transcripts (especially motion-to-reconsider hearings). Failure to do so virtually guarantees appellate deference under Foutch.
- Draft MSAs carefully: specify whether consultation is a condition precedent, set procedures for dispute resolution, custodial accounts, and apportionment formulas to avoid discretionary splits.
- When contesting college-expense petitions, produce documented evidence on custodial funds, precise out‑of‑pocket costs, and contemporaneous communication to rebut credibility findings and ability‑to‑pay conclusions.