In re Marriage of Razzano, 2012 IL App (3d) 110608

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Razzano, 2012 IL App (3d) 110608 (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Nov. 14, 2012).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Brenda Lynn Razzano (now Gorski). Respondent/Appellant: Dana Louis Razzano.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether post‑secondary education expenses were governed by the parties’ child‑support provision (subject to §505 modification) or by the education‑expense statute (§513).
- Whether a marital settlement agreement that defines “child support” to include post‑majority college expenses is enforceable and modifiable as child support.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the handwritten modification to the marital settlement agreement (defining “child support” to include post‑secondary education until age 22 while attending college full‑time) controlled. The trial court properly applied the §505 child‑support guidelines when modifying the obligation instead of §513.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court analyzed the settlement as a contract incorporated into the decree and interpreted its plain language de novo (citing In re Marriage of Coulter, 2012 IL 113474). Under 750 ILCS 5/502, settlement terms are enforceable and, except where expressly limited, child support terms are modifiable. Section 510(d) permits parties to agree to extend support beyond statutory cutoff ages.
- The parties’ negotiated definition of emancipation expressly extended child‑support obligations to age 22 while in college. The handwritten, initialed language stating the support provision was “in lieu of any other obligation by [Dana] for education support” demonstrated intent to treat post‑secondary expenses as part of child support. Because the agreement redefined the nature of the obligation, the court did not err in using §505 to recalculate/modifiy payments.
- The court distinguished cases where no agreement exists and §513 would govern educational contributions.

5. Practice implications (for attorneys)
- Draft settlement provisions with clarity: expressly state whether post‑majority college expenses are (a) part of child support, (b) a separate educational obligation, or (c) apportioned under §513.
- If parties intend to make post‑secondary costs modifiable via child‑support guidelines, say so explicitly and reference §505; if they want a non‑modifiable or separately enforceable educational obligation, state that and cite §513.
- Handwritten changes and initials can be enforceable—avoid ambiguity; use full executed amendments.
- Be aware courts will give effect to negotiated tradeoffs in agreements; changing one term (e.g., extending emancipation) affects the agreement’s balance. Consider express waiver/reservation language about modification and enforcement remedies.