In re Marriage of Putzler, 2013 IL App (2d) 120551

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Putzler, 2013 IL App (2d) 120551.
- Marguerite Putzler (petitioner/appellee) v. Ronald Putzler (respondent/appellant).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in increasing respondent’s child support after finding a substantial change in circumstances (respondent’s increased ability to pay and children’s increased needs).
- Whether the court properly awarded petitioner attorney fees in connection with contempt proceedings where petitioner was employed by her counsel’s firm and thus not personally burdened by the billed fees.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld: (a) the December 27, 2011 order increasing monthly child support from $2,500 to $3,703; and (b) the April 25, 2012 award of $3,125 in attorney fees to petitioner.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Substantial change in circumstances: The court found adequate evidentiary support for modification — testimony and comparative financial affidavits showed increased household and children’s expenses; forensic accounting evidence showed respondent’s true income rose.
- Forensic/add‑back analysis: The CPA (John Coffey) reviewed corporate and personal tax records and added back business “perks” and personal expenses paid through the dental practice (auto expenses, cell phones, storage unit rent, etc.), totaling $17,316, producing a substantially higher gross/net income for 2009. The court accepted those add‑backs as consistent with the Act’s definition of income for support purposes (750 ILCS 5/505) and recognized that commuting and personal uses are not deductible business expenses.
- Attorney fees: Although petitioner worked for counsel’s firm, the fee award was upheld because the award served both to sanction respondent for contempt and to compensate counsel for work required to vindicate petitioner’s rights. The court reviewed the award for reasonableness under the trial court’s discretion and found no abuse.

5. Practice implications for family lawyers (practical takeaways)
- When seeking modification against self‑employed or corporate‑owned business payors, use a forensic CPA to identify add‑backs for personal perks, improperly claimed business deductions, and employer‑paid personal benefits (vehicles, phones, storage, insurance).
- Gather contemporaneous documentation showing children’s increased needs and household expense increases (school fees, auto/insurance, utilities, home repairs) to establish a substantial change.
- Anticipate and prepare to rebut arguments about prorated business use (mileage logs, cell‑phone usage, corporate policies).
- Contempt proceedings can justify attorney‑fee awards even where the client is employed by counsel’s firm; seek fees as both sanction and compensation and document time/billing for reasonableness.
- Trial court findings on income, add‑backs, and fee awards receive deference; build a strong evidentiary record to withstand abuse‑of‑discretion review.