In re Marriage of Watson, 2023 IL App (4th) 210229-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Watson, 2023 IL App (4th) 210229‑U (Ill. App. 4th Dist. June 21, 2023) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Jerri L. Watson. Respondent‑Appellant: Joseph C. Watson.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in granting petitioner’s motion to reconsider and altering the maintenance award from $276.83/month to $249.60/week.
- Whether the trial court improperly computed maintenance and child‑support arrears without giving effect to respondent’s pending petitions to modify (filed Feb. 1, 2018, and Apr. 7, 2020) or his claimed reduced income.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in granting petitioner’s motion to reconsider and in its handling of maintenance and arrearage calculations; respondent’s challenge to the arrears was rejected.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: Court acknowledged competing standards (abuse of discretion vs. de novo) and agreed that where a motion to reconsider asserts only misapplication of existing law/calculations, review is de novo—though here affirmance followed on the merits.
- Trial court findings: It found respondent’s gross annual income was $56,160 and petitioner’s actual income $420/week (unemployment plus temporary dependency allowance that was not expected to continue). The court concluded maintenance was appropriate and recalculated the payment schedule after the parties’ post‑trial submissions.
- On the petitions to modify and arrears: the court treated respondent’s “petitions” as functional motions and found insufficient documentary support (no employment records; respondent relied on testimony the court deemed not credible). The court therefore refused to give retroactive effect to the unproven modifications and upheld child‑support arrears ($5,625.97 as of April 20, 2020), terminating future support when the child reached majority.
- Procedural: petitioner’s motion to reconsider raised computational errors and submitted corrected calculations; the trial court allowed that motion, vacated the prior maintenance frequency/amount, and entered the weekly figure.

5) Practice implications for family lawyers
- Evidentiary support matters: petitions to modify maintenance/support must be supported by documentary evidence (pay stubs, employer records, tax returns). Relying solely on testimony risks credibility findings adverse to your client.
- Preserve the record: hearings on motions to reconsider and modification petitions should be transcribed or reflected by agreed statements; absence of a reporter transcript limits appellate argument.
- Be precise about arrearage calculations and timely submit accounting (clerk’s printouts, child support records) into evidence. If a post‑judgment correction is sought, attach clear corrected computations to the motion to reconsider.
- Labeling is not determinative: a “petition” may be treated as a motion; frame relief and proof accordingly.