In re Marriage of Wallace, 2021 IL App (2d) 200569-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Wallace, 2021 IL App (2d) 200569‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. June 7, 2021) (Rule 23(b) non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Suzanne Wallace. Respondent‑Appellant: William “Buddy” Wallace, III.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to make a child‑support modification retroactive to the date the obligor filed his petition to modify.
- Whether the trial court deviated from the statutory guidelines without making written findings.
- Procedural: whether appellant’s appellate arguments were forfeited for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rules 341 and 342.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court deemed the appellant’s substantive arguments forfeited under Rule 341 for failure to comply with briefing and appendix requirements, and it upheld the trial court’s decision declining retroactivity of the modified child support (new support to commence Aug. 15, 2020).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Procedural forfeiture: The opinion emphasizes strict compliance with Rules 341 and 342. The appellant’s appendix omitted required record materials, included non‑record documents, omitted necessary jurisdictional details (e.g., date of notice of appeal), and failed to cite controlling authority or standards of review. Consistent with precedent, the court deemed those arguments forfeited. The court noted forfeiture limits the parties, not the court, but here the procedural defects precluded meaningful review.
- Merits (alternative basis): The trial court found the December 5, 2019 parenting change (flipping primary custody) was intended and ordered to take effect in fall 2020; the obligor testified he would not feel financial effect until the children actually lived with him; parties had stipulated to the obligor/obligee support amount ($1,462/month) effective under the new plan; practical difficulties in calculating interim obligations were evident. On that record the denial of retroactivity was not an abuse of discretion. The court also explained the changed statutory framework (2017 adoption of the income‑shares model under 750 ILCS 5/505) but found no reversible guideline deviation.

5. Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- Strictly comply with Rules 341/342: assemble a complete appendix from the record only; include appeal dates, jurisdictional facts, witness references, and authorities with standards of review. Failure to do so risks forfeiture.
- When seeking retroactive modification of support, develop and present clear record evidence of the obligor/obligee’s contemporaneous financial impact and a practicable method for calculating interim obligations.
- If requesting a deviation from guidelines, obtain and preserve written findings explaining the reasons.
- Be mindful of the post‑2017 income‑shares child support framework when calculating and litigating modifications.