In re Marriage of Waite, 2020 IL App (2d) 190783-U

In re Marriage of Waite, 2020 IL App (2d) 190783‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Blair Waite and Diane Benner, No. 2‑19‑0783 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Dec. 8, 2020). (Rule 23 order — non‑precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether husband proved a “substantial change in circumstances” justifying a reduction in child support previously set at $2,600/month under a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that incorporated a negotiated downward deviation for a 50/50 parenting schedule.
- Whether changes in husband’s compensation (loss of Baxter stock/RSU compensation after job termination and later employment with different compensation structure) triggered modification.
- Whether post‑dissolution statutory shared‑parenting adjustments or the treatment of equity awards should alter the support obligation.

3) Holding / Outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court’s determination that husband failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the motion to decrease child support was properly denied.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The MSA explicitly acknowledged that the $2,600 child‑support figure represented a negotiated downward deviation based on the “totality of the present circumstances,” including the parties’ then incomes and husband’s equity compensation at Baxter.
- Husband’s compensation history showed volatility largely driven by cashing out vested Baxter equity after termination — events the court treated as either foreseeable, episodic, or effectively addressed by the MSA’s property allocation (the MSA awarded Baxter‑related vested and unvested equity to husband).
- Husband’s subsequent employment provided comparable base salary and bonus opportunities; his 2018 W‑2 and other evidence did not establish a permanent, substantial diminution in ability to pay.
- The trial court’s factual findings on income, assets, allocation of stock/equity in the property settlement, and credibility determinations were entitled to deference; the appellate court found no abuse of discretion.

5) Practice implications
- Agreements that deviate from child‑support guidelines should expressly define what components of compensation (salary, bonuses, RSUs/stock grants, sign‑on bonuses, cash‑outs) count as “income” for support and how post‑dissolution equity will be treated to avoid later modification disputes.
- When negotiating a downward deviation for equal parenting time, consider including formulaic adjustments or reopener clauses tied to measurable changes in income or to liquidation of equity awards.
- For modification motions, counsel should present clear, contemporaneous proof of a permanent (not temporary or voluntary) diminution in ability to pay; courts may view post‑dissolution cash‑outs of vested equity or voluntary career moves skeptically.
- Because property settlements may implicitly compensate for future income streams (e.g., assigning equity awards), courts may decline to treat loss of that income as a sufficient basis for reducing support.

(Non‑precedential Rule 23 status limits citation.)