Where petitioner did not contend that the trial court’s order was, in fact, a modification of maintenance or support, the order at issue could only affect the property disposition contained in the judgment; thus, the trial court had jurisdiction to enter an order modifying the property disposition only if conditions existed which would justify the reopening of a judgment as in other civil cases.
The trial court did not err in considering that the discharge of marital debt in bankruptcy constituted a substantial change in circumstances justifying an increase in support since (1) the discharge in bankruptcy relieved the father of the legal obligation of charge in bankruptcy relieved the father of the legal obligation of paying certain debts, thereby affecting a significant change in his financial condition, and (2) the wife became responsible for a substantial debt due to the father’s discharge of that debt.
Trial court’s denial of a reduction or termination of former husband’s maintenance was not an abuse of discretion, notwithstanding husband’s retirement and increased medical costs because of his present wife’s ill health; evidence established that the former husband had substantial assets from which to pay his present wife’s medical bills and the maintenance award.
The evidence was clear that the parties intended monthly payments to be something more than simple maintenance: where respondent conveyed away substantive marital property interests, in return for conveying her interest in farmland and farm equipment, she received only interest income from the trust and the monthly payments, and the payments were non-modifiable monthly payments until her death, rather than maintenance terminable by the provisions of this section.
Petitioner was earning $4 per hour, a sum only slightly above the minimum wage, while respondent had a career position with the State of Illinois, petitioner had no medical insurance and was afflicted with serious medical problems and housing difficulties; therefore, there was not basis to disturb the trial court’s order awarding periodic permanent maintenance to petitioner.
The court did not abuse its discretion in failing to reduce the amount of maintenance ordered, there was conflicting evidence regarding petitioners’ ability to pay the amount awarded, and the court chose to believe there was no substantial change in circumstances, because the petitioner had lied at trial about certain assets, and the court clearly could question petitioners’ credibility, therefore, petitioner’s request for a modification of support was denied.
Where, due to illness, respondent’s need for maintenance had increased substantially since the entry of the divorce decree, and where petitioner’s inability to pay maintenance was largely the result of indebtedness incurred by him, denial of modification of award was proper.
A property settlement agreement which stated that “it is agreed that the payment as heretofore provided of alimony in the amount, of $550 per month will in no way be effected or amended because of an increase in income to either party,” did not divest the court of its power to modify its decree under former section 18 of the Divorce Act, but simply precluded consideration of income in determining whether a change in circumstances had occurred and, such a limiting provision could not be against public policy, because by agreeing on a waiver of alimony or property settlement in lieu of alimony, the parties could have eliminated alimony completely and permanently from the court’s consideration.
The trial court determining that the discharge of plaintiff from military service was a material change in the husband’s circumstances necessitating further consideration of support for the minor child, when this discharge and discontinuance of the government allotment for child support were viewed in connection with the subsequent financial condition and amount of earnings of plaintiff.
Trial courts have wide latitude in determining whether a substantial change in circumstances has occurred and should consider not only the needs of the child and the financial status of the non-custodial parent, but also the needs and financial status of the custodial parent, the financial resources of the child, the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved, and the physical, emotional, and educational needs of the child.
Subsection (a) of this section allows for modification of a child support order upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances, in deciding whether to modify a support order, the court must consider the same factors it weighs under section 505 of the Act (750 ILCS 5/505) when it formulates an original support order.
Whether a spouse may rely on his retirement as a change in circumstances justifying a modification of maintenance depends on circumstances justifying a modification of maintenance depends on the circumstances of the individual case; relevant factors include his age, his health, his motives and timing for the retirement, his ability to pay maintenance after retirement, and the other spouse’s ability to provide for himself.
Economic reversals as a result of changes in employment or bad investments, if made in good faith, may constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of a child support order.
In determining whether a change in status was made in good faith, the crucial consideration is whether the change was prompted by a desire to evade financial responsibility for supporting the children or otherwise jeopardize their interests.
If the threshold question of substantial change is met, the court in determining the modification, considers the same factors it considered in formulating the original amount.
In determining whether there is a substantial change in circumstances, factors to be considered include the needs of the child, the financial status of the non-custodial parent, the financial status and educational needs of the child.
In making a determination as to whether a substantial change has occurred, the court must take into consideration the circumstances of the parents, the circumstances of the children, the ability of the mother as well as that of the father to provide support, their ages, health, property and income, and stations in life, and the court may also consider whether the supporting spouse has remarried.
Where a former spouse’s ability to pay is shown, the fact that children have grown older and the cost of living has risen are proper bases, for establishing increased need, considering the best interests of the children.
The increase in the children’s needs must be balanced against the relative ability of the parents to provide for them, and where a change has occurred which creates a substantial imbalance between the child’s needs and the parent’s support capabilities modification is required.
Assets derived from the divorce settlement itself cannot be considered in measuring the alleged improvement in spouse’s financial circumstances, for to do so would constitute an attack on the divorce decree itself.
A change of circumstances which will permit a modification of the child support provisions contained in a divorce decree may relate either to the needs of the child, the financial condition of the parents, or both.
Changed circumstances which permit modification of child support payment provisions relate to the needs of the minor child and the financial circumstances of the parties.
An increase in monthly support payments is warranted when the evidence establishes that the needs of the children have increased, and the means of the father have also increased so as to enable him to contribute additional sums to his children’s support.
The burden of demonstrating the alleged substantial change in circumstances is on the party seeking relief.
The burden of proving fraud or concealment is on the party asserting it, and that burden is more onerous when a party seeks to vacate or modify a property settlement incorporated in a divorce decree, all presumptions being in favor of the validity of the settlement; fraud may consist in the concealment of what is true as in the assertion of what is false, and concealment must be shown to have been done with the intention to deceive under circumstances creating an opportunity and a duty to speak.
The burden of proof is upon the party seeking relief to show that material changes in circumstances exist as would justify modification.
The burden of demonstrating circumstances warranting modification is on the party seeking the modification.
The burden of proof is on the petitioner in an action to increase support payments to prove the increased needs to support the child, and also to prove that the defendant has the ability to pay the increased amount needed.
In a proceeding to modify child support the burden of proof is on the petitioner to clearly establish the increased need and corresponding increased ability to pay and the findings, and order of the trial court, on matters of this nature, will not be reversed unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Where the plaintiff’s petition seeking modification of a divorce decree’s property settlement was based upon the alleged fraud of the respondents, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to establish this charge by clear and convincing evidence.
Although custody provisions can be modified, the party seeking to modify such provisions has the burden of proving altered conditions.
The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show such material changes in circumstances as would justify modification, and where no evidence of a change in the financial condition of the parties is offered in evidence, the petition must be denied.
In a divorce proceeding, valuation of marital property is necessary in order to reach a just apportionment except where the parties are awarded percentage interests in a particular item.
Where it is difficult to place a present value on the pension or profit sharing interest due to uncertainties or it is impractical or impossible to award sufficient offsetting marital property to the non-employee spouse, then the trial court in its discretion may award each spouse an appropriate percentage of the pension to be paid if, as, and when the pension becomes payable.
Terms of a marital property settlement agreement are binding on the court unless the agreement is found to be unconscionable; the determination of unconscionable in a divorce agreement requires consideration of the conditions under which the agreement requires consideration of the conditions under which the agreement was made and the economic circumstances of the parties resulting from the agreement.
The imposition of a trust under subsection (g) of this section is inappropriate, absent evidence of a need to protect the interests of the children, and therefore is inappropriately applied to a responsible parent.
