In re Marriage of Nixon, 2020 IL App (2d) 190310-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Nixon, 2020 IL App (2d) 190310-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Nov. 12, 2020) (Sup. Ct. Rule 23 order, non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Amy Nixon (n/k/a Amy Koester). Respondent‑Appellant: Douglas Nixon.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering both parents to split their child's college expenses 50/50 subject to a $10,000 per‑parent annual cap under 750 ILCS 5/513 (education expense awards), considering each party’s present financial resources and other statutory factors (Section 513(j)).
- Whether the appellate court may modify the trial court’s award under Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) rather than remanding.

3) Holding/outcome
- Modified. The appellate court held the $10,000 annual cap as to father was an abuse of discretion given his inability to pay and reduced his obligation to $2,375 per year for each of the child’s four college years. The remainder of the trial court’s order was affirmed. The mother’s obligation remained unchanged; each parent’s duty is independent.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory framework: Section 513 permits awards for children’s educational expenses and requires consideration of “all relevant factors,” including the parties’ present and future financial resources (750 ILCS 5/513(j)). Awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Facts: At hearing father’s net monthly income was $2,337.90; monthly living expenses $1,334.56; credit card payments $1,091.55; child support $656 — leaving expenses/debt/support exceeding net income by $744.21. Mother had substantially greater income and assets.
- Precedent: Court relied on In re Marriage of Thurmond to show a parent should not be ordered to pay more than he/she can afford. Because father could not afford the trial court’s cap, the appellate court found an abuse of discretion.
- Remedy: Under Rule 366(a)(5) the appellate court entered the judgment it considered appropriate rather than remanding — allocating a reasonable contribution from father based on his liquid property (about half of his checking account divided over four years).

5) Practice implications
- When litigating education‑expense petitions, litigants must: (a) document current, verifiable net income, living expenses, debt service and support obligations; (b) quantify liquid assets (checking/savings) and retirement/savings available for education; (c) present detailed spending and deposit records to explain non‑earned funds; and (d) argue both income‑and‑asset capacity.
- Courts will not require contributions that render a parent unable to meet own reasonable expenses or exceed ability to pay. Appellate courts may modify awards under Rule 366(a)(5) where the record supports a specific alternative, avoiding remand.