In re Marriage of Murray, 2020 IL App (3d) 170627-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Murray, 2020 IL App (3d) 170627‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 10, 2020) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner: Claudia Murray; Respondent‑Appellee: Rodney Murray; Intervenor‑Appellant: Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (DHFS).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether mandatory statutory interest under the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/505) and the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/12‑109) accrued on an existing child‑support arrearage between May 1, 2007 and January 31, 2017.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying DHFS’s request to add that interest to the judgment. (Respondent raised laches but the circuit court’s orders did not address it.)

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court held the trial court erred in denying DHFS’s motion for imposition of additional mandatory statutory interest for the period May 2007–Jan 2017. The circuit court’s decision was reversed and the matter remanded with directions to apply the statutorily required interest.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court emphasized that unpaid child‑support obligations accrue statutory interest monthly under §505 of the Marriage Act and §12‑109 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 12‑109 requires calculating interest by applying one‑twelfth of the statutory annual interest rate to the unpaid child‑support balance at the end of each calendar month. Because the statutory scheme mandates simple interest on unpaid child support as of month‑end, the Department was entitled to the additional interest it calculated for May 2007–Jan 2017. The appellate panel found that, despite procedural irregularities in the record (long gaps in filings, limited appearances), the legal question of accrued statutory interest could be resolved on the merits and that the trial court had failed to include the statutorily mandated interest amount in its judgment. The court did not rest its disposition on laches, noting the circuit court made no explicit laches ruling.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Title IV‑D agencies and private counsel must explicitly calculate and request statutorily mandated monthly interest on arrearages when seeking judgment or modification—interest accrues automatically and must be reflected in enforcement orders.
- Defenses such as laches are unlikely to negate statutory interest where the statute mandates accrual; if raised, they must be preserved and expressly adjudicated in the trial court record.
- Ensure clerk’s orders and judgments specify calculation periods, interest rates, and withholding start dates; omissions invite reversal/remand and post‑judgment disputes.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 non‑precedential order; persuasive for practice but not binding precedent.