In re Marriage of Savant, 2019 IL App (3d) 180229-U

- Case: In re Marriage of Savant, 2019 IL App (3d) 180229‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., June 21, 2019) (Rule 23 — nonprecedential).
- Parties: Petitioner‑Appellant Edward C. Savant v. Respondent‑Appellee Michele M. Savant.

Key legal issues
1. How to characterize and compute child support arising from a large severance payment (retroactive support).
2. Proper method (lump sum v. monthly/“step‑down”) for supporting obligation tied to severance.
3. Use of annualized calculation for high‑income payors under 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.5).
4. Whether individualized tax deductions must be used (vs. standardized DHFS tax amount) under section 505.
5. Whether the trial court compounded income incorrectly and whether objections were preserved.

Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) treating the severance as a bonus and ordering a lump‑sum retroactive support payment of $23,796, (2) finding an overpayment of $4,286 to Edward, and (3) setting future support at $281 every other week beginning February 2018.

Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: abuse of discretion for child support determinations.
- Characterization of severance: trial court concluded severance was essentially a “bonus” received immediately (not prepaid salary), so support tied to income already received — no step‑down for a child’s upcoming emancipation. Edward had expressly agreed at the hearing to a lump sum, so he was estopped from contesting that form of relief on appeal.
- High‑income discretion: under 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.5), when combined adjusted net income exceeds the support schedule, the court may use its discretion to determine a fair amount. The court computed a monthly obligation ($1,983) from combined annual income and annualized it (×12) to reach the lump sum; that result was lower than what prior terms would have demanded, supporting reasonableness.
- Tax deduction method: section 505 allows use of standardized tax amounts unless individualized tax treatment is warranted; subsection (E)(III) permits individualized tax amounts when the court determines support after an evidentiary hearing — which occurred here.
- Forfeiture: Edward’s compounding argument lacked record citation and was not preserved for review.

Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Preserve objections and the record: failure to object or to include record citations forfeits appellate review.
- Severance payments are often characterized as “bonus” income; if you want amortization or step‑down treatment, expressly litigate and preserve that theory.
- For high‑income payors, courts have statutory discretion under §505(a)(3.5); be prepared to present alternative computations (annualized, bonus percentage, or software outputs) and show comparative fairness.
- If you want individualized tax adjustments, obtain an evidentiary hearing and a record justifying departures from the standardized DHFS deduction.
- Beware of estoppel from concessions made at the hearing (e.g., agreement to lump sum).