In re Marriage of Taylor, 2019 IL App (5th) 170412-U

In re Marriage of Taylor, No. 5-17-0412 (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. Mar. 27, 2019) (Rule 23 order — nonprecedential)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Taylor, 2019 IL App (5th) 170412-U. Petitioner-Appellant: Simon Z. Taylor. Respondent-Appellee: Casey M. Taylor (n/k/a Casey M. Carroll).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether petitioner demonstrated a “substantial change in circumstances” warranting modification of child support.
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to impute income to respondent and by not making express credibility findings or permitting further inquiry into allegedly misleading testimony.
- Whether remand was warranted for “new and material” evidence discovered after appeal.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court’s denial of petitioner’s petition to modify child support was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court did not err in declining to impute income to respondent or in its handling of credibility and proof issues. Remand was denied.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Burden/standard: The appellate court applied the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard to the trial court’s factual findings about change in circumstances and credibility.
- Income evidence: Petitioner showed reduced earnings while in school (paystubs showed variable hours and hourly wage increases). Respondent, although previously imputed income in a Washington decree, testified she worked part‑time for the county and supplemented income with seasonal/home-based self‑employment (Etsy, babysitting), and relied on public assistance and childcare considerations.
- Imputation analysis: The trial court permissibly declined to impute a full‑time income to respondent because the record showed she worked part‑time intentionally to avoid childcare costs and her self‑employment was sporadic/seasonal. The appellate court found no requirement that the trial court make explicit credibility findings where the testimony and financial affidavits provided a sufficient factual basis.
- Accounting errors: Respondent’s incorrect monthly calculation did not require exclusion when she provided underlying documentation enabling the court to determine income.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- To obtain modification, prove a substantial change in circumstances with clear, consistent income evidence (paystubs, tax returns, hours history).
- To seek imputation, develop evidence of respondent’s earning capacity and proof of voluntary underemployment (job market, qualifications, ability to work full‑time) and counter explanations tied to childcare or legitimate constraints.
- Preserve and present full documentation of non‑wage income (seasonal, self‑employment, stipends); show how childcare costs affect net availability/willingness to work.
- When challenging credibility, record specific contradictions and seek findings; absent that, appellate review will defer to trial court’s fact‑finding.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 unpublished decision and not binding precedent.