In re Marriage of Pasquesi, 2015 IL App (1st) 133926

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Pasquesi, 2015 IL App (1st) 133926 (1st Dist., June 10, 2015). Petitioner-Appellee: Roberta (Bobbie) Pasquesi. Respondent-Appellant: John Pasquesi.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering John to replenish a Section 503(g) trust established by the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) when the trustee was Roberta (an interested party) and replenishment evidence was disputed.
- Whether the court erred in calculating retroactive child support for Feb. 1, 2012–Aug. 13, 2012 when John claimed no income.
- Whether allocation of dependency tax exemptions to Roberta (per the MSA) was improper.
- Whether the court properly ordered John to pay past-due child-related expenses.

3. Holding/outcome
Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion: it upheld the replenishment order (set at $12,000/year), the retroactive support calculations (imputing income as appropriate under the MSA), the allocation of tax exemptions to Roberta per the MSA, and the award of $12,464 in past-due child-related expenses based on Roberta’s accounting.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Enforceability of MSA: The MSA expressly established a $90,000 trust under 750 ILCS 5/503(g) with Roberta named trustee and provided for review/replenishment after 24 months. The court reasonably enforced those contract terms; naming an interested trustee in an MSA does not alone defeat enforcement absent proof of impropriety.
- Replenishment: The court found John had willfully refused to pay nonmedical, non-disputed expenses and court enforcement of the trust replenishment was within its discretion to secure child obligations.
- Imputation of income/retroactivity: For Feb–Aug 2012 the court relied on the MSA’s imputed $60,000 net-income baseline and the absence of evidence demonstrating a changed financial circumstance; evidence of substantial IRA distributions and prior income supported the court’s decision to impute ability to pay.
- Tax exemptions and expenses: The MSA explicitly permitted Roberta to claim future dependency exemptions, so the court enforced that term. For past-due expenses, the court credited Roberta’s detailed accounting and rejected John’s generalized objections as insufficient.

5. Practice implications
- Draft MSAs with precise trust mechanics: who the trustee is, accounting/audit rights, replenishment triggers, dispute-resolution mechanisms, and sanctions for nonpayment.
- Preserve documentary evidence when contesting expenses or claiming inability to pay: bank records, contemporaneous invoices, and proof of transfers (IRA distributions may undermine a poverty claim).
- If representing the trustee, ensure robust documentation of withdrawals/reimbursements; if representing the obligor, promptly challenge specific items with evidence.
- Where MSAs impute income, litigants should introduce contemporaneous evidence of changed circumstances to avoid imputation.