In re Marriage of Schutz, 2019 IL App (2d) 180008-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Schutz, 2019 IL App (2d) 180008-U (Order filed Aug. 8, 2019; Rule 23 non‑precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Daniel J. Schutz. Respondent/Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Ombretta Schutz.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court correctly (a) modified child support and applied retroactive adjustments under competing calculation methods (pre‑ and post‑July 1, 2017 income‑shares change), (b) interpreted and enforced the prior judgment/MSA as requiring “additional child support” on income from all sources (bonuses, stock awards/options, non‑cash tax offsets), and (c) calculated arrearages, credits and award of attorney fees. Procedural issues about forfeiture and appellate jurisdiction were also raised.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings in all respects. It upheld the modification of child support (including retroactivity and adoption of the income‑shares model after July 1, 2017), affirmed that “additional child support” covers all sources of income (including discretionary bonuses, stock awards/options and certain non‑cash tax items), affirmed calculation of arrearages (after crediting payments), and upheld an award of attorney fees to the wife. The court declined to entertain part of the husband’s challenge to attorney fees for lack of jurisdiction.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Substantive: The trial court’s interpretation that the parties had agreed to the March 2011 order (which expanded “additional child support” to income “from any source over and above base income”) superseded the narrower MSA language; therefore stock awards/options and certain non‑cash items could be treated as income for additional child‑support calculations. The court accepted the trial court’s factual and arithmetic determinations (including tax‑treatment choices) as within its discretion. The trial court also required the husband to pay his share of marital property stock‑option proceeds previously awarded to the wife.
- Procedural: Many appellate challenges were forfeited where briefs failed to develop arguments or cite authority. The court also stressed preservation rules and that it lacked jurisdiction to review some fee contentions because of procedural posture (timing of notices and pending post‑judgment motions).

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Draft MSA and modification orders carefully to define “income” and “additional child support” (expressly address bonuses, equity awards, non‑cash compensation, tax offsets).
- Preserve issues: develop arguments and authorities in the trial court and appellate briefs; amend notices of appeal when post‑judgment motions remain pending to protect jurisdiction.
- Expect trial courts broad discretion on income characterization/tax formulas and on awarding fees for willful noncompliance; secure clear credits for any payments and obtain detailed findings on calculations.