In re Marriage of Tellez, 2024 IL App (1st) 241866-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Tellez, No. 1-24-1866, 2024 IL App (1st) 241866-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. Dec. 20, 2024) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Roseanne Tellez. Respondent-Appellant: David A. Cerda.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding respondent in indirect civil contempt for unpaid child support and ordering jail with a purge condition equal to the full arrearage ($248,648.73) where the record did not support that respondent had the ability to pay.
- Standards for shifting burdens in civil contempt for failure to pay child support and the sufficiency of evidence to prove inability to pay.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court vacated the contempt order and ordered respondent’s release because the record did not support a finding that he had the ability to satisfy the purge condition. The contempt finding was reversed as an improper exercise of the court’s coercive power given lack of evidence of ability to comply.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Civil contempt is remedial/coercive; incarceration with a purge condition is lawful only if the contemnor is able to comply (citing Logston, Sharp, Harnack). Nonpayment is prima facie evidence of contempt, shifting the burden to the respondent to prove inability to pay. But inability must be shown by definite, explicit evidence (bank records, income, asset disposition)—general testimony is insufficient (Dall, Chenoweth).
- Here respondent (an attorney) testified to lack of income, heavy liabilities, reliance on his father (who previously paid modest purge sums), and pending litigation that might generate fees. The trial court concluded respondent willfully chose not to work and therefore rejected the inability defense. The appellate court accepted that voluntariness might justify contempt but held the court still needed a record-based finding that respondent actually could comply with the purge condition; absent evidence he could pay the full arrearage, incarcerating him until he did was punitive, not coercive (citing Nahlawi).

5. Practice implications (concise)
- For petitioners seeking civil contempt for unpaid support: present admissible, concrete evidence of the contemnor’s current ability to pay before asking for incarceration or a high purge amount (salary records, bank accounts, asset transfers, judgments).
- For respondents: present documentary proof (income, job search, asset exhaustion, disability, tax liens) to invoke inability defense; general testimony is likely insufficient.
- Trial courts should make explicit findings about the contemnor’s ability to comply when setting purge amounts to ensure the sanction remains coercive rather than punitive.
- Counsel should consider alternative enforcement tools and make timely record-based findings to withstand appellate scrutiny.