In re Marriage of Ryan, 2022 IL App (1st) 201234-U

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Ryan, 2022 IL App (1st) 201234-U. Petitioner-Appellant: Suzanne M. Ryan. Respondent-Appellee: Roibin Ryan. (Rule 23 order — nonprecedential.)

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by (a) declining to deviate from the child‑support guidelines after imputing income to the former wife and imputing a higher income to the former husband, and (b) ordering the former wife to pay child support to the higher‑earning, majority‑custodial father.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in reducing the requested contribution to the former wife’s attorney fees and setting a lower “reasonable” amount.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion: the trial court permissibly imputed income to both parties, applied the statutory income‑shares child support model, and correctly ordered the former wife to pay guideline support to the former husband.
- The court also affirmed the reduction in the requested attorney‑fee contribution, ordering the husband to pay $35,896 toward fees (difference between court‑found reasonable fee of $170,000 and amounts already paid).

4. Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Child support: Illinois’s statutory income‑shares model (750 ILCS 5/505(a)(1.5), (a)(3.8)) requires calculating each party’s net income and apportioning the guideline obligation by income and parenting time. The trial court found Suzanne voluntarily unemployed (no medical/mental‑health expert evidence proving disability) and imputed minimum‑wage full‑time income ($29,120). It imputed substantial income to Roibin ($375,554) despite his retirement. The court noted Roibin had majority custody and paid nearly all of the child’s expenses (~$51,000/yr), supporting application of the guidelines (result: Suzanne pays $186.13/mo plus $31.19 for medical). The appellate court emphasized that imputation requires a discretionary factual finding and that absent evidentiary support (e.g., medical expert) a claim of disability will not preclude imputation.
- Attorney’s fees: The trial court has discretion to assess reasonableness of billed hours/rates. After comparing the parties’ bills and payments, the court concluded Suzanne’s counsels’ billed amount was unreasonable and reduced the award to a market‑consistent figure.

5. Practice implications for family lawyers
- Anticipate aggressive imputation analyses under the income‑shares model; to resist imputation, produce contemporaneous medical/occupational evidence and expert testimony when disability or inability to work is asserted.
- When seeking deviation from guidelines, develop a factual record on custody time‑sharing, who pays actual child expenses, and any equities that might justify departure. Mere income disparity or asset transfer is insufficient without connecting facts.
- Fee petitions must be well‑supported and in line with prevailing market rates/hours; courts will reduce inflated billing and can base contribution awards on reasonableness rather than billed totals.
- Remember Rule 23 status: persuasive but not binding precedent.