In re Marriage of Salvatore, 2019 IL App (2d) 180425

In re Marriage of Salvatore, 2019 IL App (2d) 180425

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Salvatore, 2019 IL App (2d) 180425 (2d Dist. Mar. 8, 2019).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Brenda Salvatore. Respondent-Appellant: Daniel Salvatore.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a post‑dissolution change in the nonsupporting parent’s income (Brenda) or the supporting parent’s decreased income (Daniel) constituted a “substantial change in circumstances” warranting modification of child support.
- Whether statutory amendments to the Illinois child‑support statutes (effective July 1, 2017) — which adopted an “income‑shares” model and permit considering both parents’ income — provide a proper basis to modify support fixed by a marital settlement agreement (MSA) executed under prior law.

3. Holding/outcome
- The trial court’s denial of Daniel’s petition to modify child support was affirmed. Daniel abandoned his claim as to his own income on appeal; the court rejected modification based on Brenda’s income or the statutory changes.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The MSA set child support at $8,100/month, expressly computed as 32% of Daniel’s net income (based on his individual returns) — consistent with the pre‑2017 statutory guideline model that did not generally factor the nonsupporting parent’s income.
- The trial court found Daniel’s 2017 tax returns unreliable and rejected his decreased‑income claim. As to Brenda’s subsequent employment income, the court concluded: (a) at the time the MSA was negotiated and entered, Daniel’s obligation was calculated solely on his income, so Brenda’s post‑judgment earnings were not part of the original calculus; (b) merely changing the statutory framework does not automatically transform the nonsupporting parent’s later earnings into a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of a bargained support figure; and (c) even if Brenda’s income were considered, it was comparatively modest and did not constitute a substantial change. The court therefore granted a directed finding for Brenda and denied modification.

5. Practice implications
- When negotiating MSAs: explicitly address how future income of both parents will affect support (formulas, offsets, or explicit waiver language) and contemplate statutory changes to avoid post‑judgment disputes.
- Modification strategy: a statutory amendment alone is unlikely to constitute the requisite substantial change; litigants should develop concrete, post‑judgment factual changes (material income shifts, extraordinary events) and robust documentary support.
- Evidentiary care: courts scrutinize tax returns, deposits, and business accounting; ensure clean, consistent financial records when seeking or defending modification.
- Consider including express modification triggers in agreements (e.g., income thresholds, income‑share conversion clauses) if parties want future recalculation tied to changes in law or employment.