In re Marriage of Petersen, 2011 IL 110984

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Petersen, 2011 IL 110984 (Ill. S. Ct. Sept. 22, 2011).
- Janet Kellogg Petersen (appellant) v. Kevin Petersen (appellee).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a post‑dissolution petition to allocate college expenses (where the original decree expressly reserved the issue) constitutes a “modification” under 750 ILCS 5/510.
- Whether section 510’s prohibition on retroactive modification bars awards for college expenses incurred before the filing date.
- Whether college/educational expenses under §513 are treated as child support subject to §510.

3) Holding/outcome
- Supreme Court: Petition to allocate reserved college expenses is a modification under §510; §510’s ban on retroactive modification bars awards for pre‑petition expenses. Pre‑petition college expenditures, however, may be considered when determining whether the custodial parent exhausted resources and in apportioning future (post‑petition) obligations. Appellate judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; trial court reversed and cause remanded with directions.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The Court treated §513 educational obligations as a species of child support to be read with §505 and therefore within §510’s modification framework.
- Statutory interpretation: “modify” was given its ordinary meaning (to alter/change). A petition that changes the status quo (from a reservation to an allocated monetary obligation) is a modification.
- Section 510(a) limits modification to installments accruing after due notice (i.e., after filing), so awards for pre‑petition college installments are barred as retroactive.
- The Court recognized practical realities: although pre‑petition expenses cannot be recovered retroactively, evidence of those payments can show depletion of custodial resources and thus affect the court’s equitable apportionment of future educational costs.

5) Practice implications (practical points for attorneys)
- Treat petitions to allocate reserved college expenses as modification actions under §510: file promptly to avoid losing ability to obtain contributions for expenses already incurred.
- Do not expect retrospective reimbursement for pre‑petition college costs; seek prospective relief (and ensure timely service/notice).
- Preserve and document pre‑petition payments—use them as evidence of depletion of custodial parent’s resources to justify a larger percentage share for future expenses.
- When drafting final decrees, consider specifying whether reservation is intended to create a future entitlement or merely preserve discretion, and include clear language on timing and calculation of contributions.
- Where educational decisions are allocated to one parent in a custody agreement, coordinate remedies: decision authority does not alone create obligation to fund; allocation still subject to §510/§513 principles.