In re Marriage of Santi, 2022 IL App (2d) 210099-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Santi, 2022 IL App (2d) 21-0099-U.
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Dana M. Santi. Respondent‑Appellee: James E. Toth. Appeal from Du Page County (No. 17‑D‑647).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in awarding past‑due maintenance but failing to include statutorily mandated interest.
- Whether the trial court properly determined Dana’s income for purposes of a modified maintenance calculation (and whether the correct statutory maintenance formula was applied).
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Dana’s petition for attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(a).

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed as modified. Appellate court affirmed the trial court’s award of $19,980 in past‑due maintenance but held the award must be increased to include statutorily mandated interest of $586.72.
- The trial court’s decision to set Dana’s annual gross income at $45,000 for purposes of the maintenance modification was affirmed.
- Dana forfeited her claim that the trial court used the wrong maintenance formula on modification.
- The denial of Dana’s request for attorney fees was affirmed.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Past‑due maintenance: the court found the $19,980 shortfall supported by the record but held interest on past‑due maintenance is required by statute; the appellate court added the calculated interest ($586.72).
- Imputed income and modification: the dissolution judgment expressly imputed Dana’s income at $45,000 for guideline and future modification purposes; the appellate court upheld that factual/legal determination as reasonable in light of the parties’ prior agreement and the evidence (Pandemic‑related business decline, payroll draws, unemployment, business cash on hand).
- Formula issue and forfeiture: James’s worksheet used the post‑2019 initial‑maintenance formula (section 504(b‑1)(1)(A)) rather than the A‑1 modification formula applicable to pre‑2019 orders; however, Dana failed to preserve/press that argument, so it was forfeited on appeal.
- Attorney fees: the trial court weighed the parties’ resources (evidence showed Dana had funds on hand and had paid counsel sums into a trust) and exercised discretion to deny fees; appellate court found no abuse.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Always request and confirm statutory interest on past‑due maintenance/ support awards; if trial court omits it, preserve objection and calculate interest for appeal.
- When a judgment includes an express imputed‑income figure, courts may rely on that figure for later modifications—challenge imputation at the hearing with contemporaneous evidence if you dispute it.
- Preserve arguments about which statutory maintenance formula governs modifications (A v. A‑1) by raising them below and in closing; failure to do so risks forfeiture.
- When seeking fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(a), present a clear, detailed record of relative financial resources (including trust account and loan proceeds) to improve chances of relief.