In re Marriage of Vallin, 2019 IL App (2d) 180271-U

In re Marriage of Vallin, 2019 IL App (2d) 180271-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Adriana Vallin, n/k/a Adriana Mejia (Petitioner‑Appellee) v. Luis Vallin (Respondent‑Appellant), No. 2‑18‑0271, Order filed Mar. 20, 2019 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist.).
- Filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23 (non‑precedential; limited citation).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying respondent’s motion to reconsider a contempt/arrearage order when respondent attached copies of checks he claimed showed he paid child support (i.e., whether those checks constituted “newly discovered evidence”).
- Standards for newly discovered evidence on a motion to reconsider and the burden of a contemnor to prove payments.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider because the checks were not “new” — they were available before the contempt hearing and respondent offered no reasonable explanation for the late production.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- A motion to reconsider may rely on (1) newly discovered evidence, (2) change in law, or (3) error in applying law. “Newly discovered” requires the evidence to have been unavailable at the original hearing or a reasonable explanation for failure to produce it. (citing Emrikson v. Morfin and Gardner.)
- The trial court had repeatedly ordered respondent to provide proof of direct payments; respondent failed to do so at those times and at the contempt hearing. His post‑judgment explanation — that he did not expect petitioner to lie — was insufficient as a reasonable excuse.
- Petitioner had already acknowledged checks totaling the same aggregate amount respondent later submitted; thus respondent failed to show an overpayment or that the newly produced checks would have changed the outcome.
- Appellate court distinguished cases allowing credits where overpayments were clearly established (Tollison, Cooney) and refused to reweigh evidence under the abuse‑of‑discretion standard.

5. Practice implications
- When facing contempt for unpaid support, produce contemporaneous proof of payments at the earliest court request (bank records, SDU receipts, front/back of checks, endorsements). Relevance: courts expect earlier compliance; late submission on reconsideration often fails absent a reasonable excuse.
- Preserve documentary proof and present it at the hearing; be prepared to explain any gaps. Mere belief the other side would lie is not a sufficient excuse.
- Counsel should track SDU records separately from private payments; insist on specific court orders if the opposing party acknowledges payments.
- Motions to reconsider are narrow: newly discovered evidence must genuinely be newly obtainable. Appeals from contempt sanctions are appealable under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(5).