Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Marriage of Rundle

OPINION FILED JULY 14, 1982.

IN RE MARRIAGE OF MARY SUSAN RUNDLE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, AND RONNIE RAY RUNDLE, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.


APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County; the Hon. DENNIS M. HUBER, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE JONES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Petitioner, Mary Susan Rundle, appeals the judgment of the trial court, which dissolves the marriage of the parties, awards custody of the minor child to petitioner, requires respondent, Ronnie Ray Rundle, to pay $50 per week child support, disposes of the property of the parties, denies maintenance to either party and requires each party to pay his or her own attorney fees. Petitioner raises several issues, among them the correctness of the trial court's reliance upon a chart or schedule in making the award of child support and his failure to hear evidence as to her living expenses. Petitioner also questions the denial of her requests for maintenance and attorney fees as well as the trial court's finding that a mobile home together with approximately 3 1/2 acres upon which it is located is non-marital property owned by respondent.

Petitioner maintains that the use of a chart or schedule to fix an award of child support, without the aid of evidence of her living expenses, violated section 505(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 40, par. 505(a)) (hereinafter the Act), which provides that the court may order payment of child support "after considering all relevant factors, including:

(1) the financial resources of the child;

(2) the financial resources and needs of the custodial parent;

(3) the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved;

(4) the physical and emotional condition of the child, and his educational needs; and

(5) the financial resources and needs of the non-custodial parent or parents."

At the hearing on the property disposition the following exchange took place between petitioner's attorney and the trial court:

"MR. GINOS [attorney for petitioner]: Your Honor, if I may ask you. You indicated earlier that the Court felt that $50.00 a week was, I don't know if it was a rule of thumb or a decision in this case?

THE COURT: It's like basically a rule of thumb, however at that time I thought they said $250.00 [as respondent's earnings] a week.

MR. GINOS: Yes, sir, and I have not put any evidence on as to the monthly expenses of my client.

THE COURT: That is a hard rule of thumb. I have got a schedule I use and try to be consistent in all cases and it is just purely based on that income, it works out, came out to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.