In re Marriage of Yabush, 2021 IL App (1st) 201136

In re Marriage of Yabush, 2021 IL App (1st) 201136

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Eric Yabush (Petitioner‑Appellant) v. Melinda Yabush (Respondent‑Appellee), 2021 IL App (1st) 201136 (1st Dist., Dec. 22, 2021).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a dramatic post‑dissolution increase in a payor’s income (from ~$138,000 to multi‑million dollars) constitutes a “substantial change in circumstances” permitting modification of child support where the dissolution judgment set child support as a percentage (28%) of base pay and 28% of bonuses/commissions and contained no cap.
- Whether an agreed formula for support that automatically tracks variable compensation necessarily precludes judicial modification when income becomes vastly greater than at entry.
- The applicable standard and statutory framework for modification (including post‑2017 amendments to 750 ILCS 5/505).

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s petition to decrease child support and remanded for further proceedings.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The trial court had concluded the parties contemplated future fluctuations in the payor’s income and therefore the seven‑figure surge could not be a substantial change; the appellate court rejected that outcome. The court emphasized that an agreed percentage formula does not per se insulate a support order from modification when a change is extraordinary and unanticipated such that enforcement would produce an unjust windfall to the payee or be inconsistent with statutory modification standards.
- The appellate decision instructs that courts must examine whether the change in income is substantial and whether the parties actually contemplated the magnitude of the increase at entry. If a substantial change is found, the court must apply the statutory framework (including updated guidelines) and consider deviation factors rather than treating a percentage formula as an absolute bar to modification.

5. Practice implications (for practitioners)
- Drafting: If parties intend an immutable, income‑tied formula, include express waiver language (clear, knowing, and abiding by statutory requirements) and caps or triggers to avoid later disputes. Conversely, if a formula is intended to be flexible, state that explicitly and address future extraordinary increases.
- Litigation: When seeking modification after large income shifts, present robust evidence on historic earnings, timing, whether the increase was foreseeable, and effects on the children’s needs; argue statutory deviation factors and potential windfall to the recipient.
- Discovery/accounting: Obtain detailed business and compensation records, tax returns, K‑1s, and evidence of whether increases are recurring or one‑time.
- Counseling clients: Warn high‑earning or variable‑income clients about the potential for future modification even with percentage provisions; consider settlement language addressing caps, true‑up mechanisms, and tax treatment.

Concise guidance: percentage‑based support formulas are persuasive but not dispositive — extraordinary, unanticipated income changes can justify modification under Illinois law.