In re Marriage of Pratt, 2014 IL App (1st) 130465

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Pratt, 2014 IL App (1st) 130465 (1st Dist., Aug. 12, 2014).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Sharon Pratt. Respondent-Appellant: Murray Pratt.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in calculating respondent’s income for child support by including: bonuses, dividend/vesting income, proceeds from exercised restricted stock/options and IRA transactions.
- Whether the trial court should have considered resources of petitioner’s new husband (cohabitant/spouse) when setting child support.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding petitioner $25,000 in attorney fees.

3. Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s modification of child support (monthly guideline support ordered) and the $25,000 attorney-fee award.

4. Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Income calculation: The trial court reasonably found respondent’s 2011 gross income included salary, bonus, dividends/vested restricted stock amounts, IRA distributions and taxable income resulting from exercise of stock options. The court used a FinPlan analysis to arrive at net income and applied the statutory guideline percentage. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in treating those realizations as income for support purposes.
- Restricted-stock/option proceeds: Although the marital settlement agreement (MSA) contained language about stock/options, the trial court acted within its authority to include earnings respondent realized from the exercise/sale of stock/options awarded to him as income for child support; the appellate court deferred to that exercise of discretion.
- Cohabitant/spouse resources: The court did not err by refusing to impute the new husband’s resources where there was no evidentiary showing that the parties pooled resources or that the husband was contributing in a way that reduced petitioner’s obligation to support the children. Mere remarriage/cohabitation alone was insufficient to shift support obligations.
- Attorney fees: The $25,000 award was affirmed as within the court’s discretion based on respondent’s greater income and credibility concerns (e.g., overstated expenses). The court may award fees in post-judgment modification proceedings notwithstanding earlier MSA waivers where circumstances and equities support it.

5. Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Document and quantify all non-salary realizations (option exercises, vesting, dividends, IRA conversions) — courts may treat these as income for child support.
- If seeking to attribute a spouse/cohabitant’s resources to the custodial parent, develop tangible evidence of pooled finances or direct support of household/children; mere cohabitation is insufficient.
- Draft MSA language about stock/options and “not income for child support” clauses carefully and explicitly address future realizations and allocations to avoid litigation.
- Preserve detailed records of expenses and rebut inflated expense claims; credibility and financial disclosure detail can affect both support and fee awards.