In re Marriage of Reedy, 2019 IL App (1st) 182443-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Reedy, 2019 IL App (1st) 182443‑U (Order filed Dec. 9, 2019) (Rule 23 order — not precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Maureen M. Reedy. Respondent‑Appellant: Scott E. Reedy.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court may award retroactive child support where the marital settlement agreement (MSA) set child support as a percentage of payer’s net income and required annual disclosure of tax returns.
- Whether such relief is an impermissible “modification” (subject to 750 ILCS 5/510(a) prospective‑only limits) or permissible enforcement of the MSA.
- Jurisdictional question under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 304(a) when post‑dissolution claims (e.g., fee petitions) remain pending.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s award of $323,949.52 in retroactive child support for 2009–2015. The court concluded the award enforced the parties’ MSA rather than impermissibly modifying child support under section 510(a). Appellate jurisdiction was found proper.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The MSA expressly fixed child support as 28% of Scott’s net income and required Scott to deliver federal/state tax returns (with schedules/K‑1s) to Maureen each year. Scott failed to provide the returns as required.
- The court distinguished modification from enforcement: a court may enforce contractual obligations embodied in a judgment (here, the incorporated MSA) by requiring compliance and calculating arrears retroactively based on the contract formula and disclosed income. Section 510(a)’s restriction on retroactive modification applies to judicial modification of support, not enforcement of express contractual support terms that were never complied with.
- Jurisdiction: the opinion discusses an appellate split on Rule 304(a) in post‑dissolution matters (cases treating postdissolution petitions as independent vs. part of a single action). The court found jurisdiction regardless of which line is applied because Maureen’s fee request was part of the relief and the trial court’s disposition was appealable; it also noted the trial court struck the motion to reconsider as untimely.

5. Practice implications
- Draft MSAs with precise support formulas and mandatory, timely income disclosure clauses (returns, K‑1s, calculations) and expressly state remedies for non‑compliance (including entitlement to retroactive calculation).
- When seeking retroactive support, plead enforcement of the MSA (contractual arrears) rather than “modification” to avoid 510(a) limits; preserve documentary proof of income.
- Be mindful of appeal deadlines and Rule 304(a): if leaving related claims (e.g., fees) pending, include an express Rule 304(a) finding or resolve all claims to avoid jurisdictional disputes.
- Preserve and timely file motions to reconsider; appellate courts may treat late motions as untimely and final judgments as appealable.