In re Marriage of Walker, 2019 IL App (3d) 180575-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Walker, 2019 IL App (3d) 180575-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Dec. 20, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Daniel R. Walker. Respondent‑Appellee: Kristin L. Walker n/k/a Kristin L. Bannon.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in modifying child support under a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that provided for a reduction once the children were “enrolled in a full time course of education.”
- Whether the MSA’s reduction formula was an unenforceable downward deviation from the Illinois Child Support Act.
- Whether the trial court properly applied the post‑dissolution statutory child‑support scheme (amended 750 ILCS 5/505, effective July 1, 2017) when recalculating support.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a substantial change in circumstances and reducing respondent’s child support obligation from $800 to $443 per month.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: child‑support modification rests within the trial court’s wide discretion and will be overturned only for abuse of that discretion.
- Trial findings: the court found respondent credible, petitioner not; it found the MSA’s trigger (children enrolled in full‑time education) occurred because the children no longer required daytime care by petitioner. That factual finding supported a substantial‑change determination under 750 ILCS 5/510(a)(1).
- The court rejected petitioner’s contention that the original support amount was an unlawful downward deviation because no evidence proved it. Given the parties’ agreement that support was modifiable on the stated trigger, the court treated the MSA as enforceable.
- Because the statutory child‑support law had been amended, the trial court applied the current statutory framework (July 1, 2017 amendment to section 505) in calculating the new obligation, concluding the parties’ MSA result was essentially aligned with the new formula. The court considered earnings, LLC distributions and gifts to respondent, and petitioner’s SSDI in computing support.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Draft MSAs with clear, enforceable modification triggers and address whether modifications should be calculated under then‑existing or future statutory formulas.
- Anticipate that courts may apply current statutory guidelines when a contracted trigger occurs; include language specifying intent regarding later statutory changes.
- When litigating modification, present concrete evidence of income (salary, K‑1 distributions, gifts) and custody/parenting‑time facts; credibility and detailed financial proofs are critical.
- Remember Rule 23 status: this opinion is non‑precedential but instructive on how Illinois courts treat MSA modification clauses and post‑dissolution statutory changes.