In re Marriage of Reed, 2022 IL App (5th) 2101001-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Reed, 2022 IL App (5th) 210100-U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist. Jan. 10, 2022).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Richard L. Reed. Respondent-Appellee: Rachelle A. Reed.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court engaged in improper ex parte communications before an April 1, 2021 Zoom hearing.
- Whether Reed’s constitutional rights were violated by being required to attend the Zoom hearing from a public room.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying Reed’s petition to modify (reduce) spousal maintenance where his reported income had sharply declined and he submitted tax returns but did not otherwise explain the change.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Reed’s petition to modify maintenance. It rejected Reed’s claims of improper ex parte communications and constitutional violation relating to the Zoom hearing.

4) Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Ex parte communications: The court observed no substantive, prejudicial ex parte contact. Administrative/ scheduling communications about how and where a proceeding will occur are permitted under Supreme Court Rule 63 (scheduling/administrative matters).
- Zoom/public-room claim: The record showed the court offered a continuance or reset; Reed declined. The appellate court found no constitutional deprivation or reversible error based on where Reed sat for the Zoom hearing absent a showing of prejudice.
- Merits of modification: To obtain a maintenance modification the movant must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances. The trial court has discretion to assess credibility and the sufficiency of proof. Reed submitted tax returns showing reduced reported income but declined to testify, declined to call witnesses, and offered no medical records or other evidence explaining why his income dropped or why it will remain low. The court reasonably relied on prior findings, inconsistencies in Reed’s submissions, and the absence of explanatory evidence; it refused to base modification solely on unexplained decreases in reported income. The court therefore did not err in denying relief.

5) Practice implications for family-law practitioners
- Burden and proof: A movant seeking maintenance modification must do more than file tax returns — present admissible evidence explaining the income change (testimony, medical records if disability, full tax schedules, corroborating documents).
- Credibility matters: Courts will weigh credibility, prior inconsistent statements, and may impute income or rely on prior-year income where a movant fails to explain reductions.
- Procedure and Zoom hearings: Administrative scheduling contacts about hearing logistics are permissible; preserve objections and request continuances if privacy or technical setup is prejudicial. If proceeding remotely, secure a private location or obtain continuance and make the record of any limitation.
- Practical tip: Prepare a complete evidentiary record (witnesses, exhibits, narrative testimony) rather than relying solely on documentary submissions.