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 Rapacz

OPINION FILED AUGUST 21, 1985.

IN RE MARRIAGE OF RAYMOND J. RAPACZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, AND CAROL C. RAPACZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.


Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County; the Hon. S. Keith Lewis, Judge, presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE NASH DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Respondent, Carol Rapacz (wife), appeals from portions of the judgment of dissolution of her marriage to plaintiff, Raymond J. Rapacz (husband), which awarded child support and maintenance and divided marital property. In a separate appeal which we have consolidated here, the wife also contends the trial court erred in declining to enforce an agreement by the husband to pay a certain debt.

The evidence disclosed these parties were married in 1970; the husband was 38 years of age, the wife 36 and they had one child who was born in 1981. The husband is a physician specializing in cardiology who earned $217,000 in 1982, and $204,000 in 1983. The wife has a college degree and was employed for 11 of the 13 years of the marriage in the data processing-computer fields for Sears and International Harvester; she stopped working in 1981 when their child was born. The wife earned $32,000 in the last year of her employment.

The marital property of the parties was valued at $951,238.10 of which $755,023.10 (79.4%) was awarded to the husband and $196,215 (20.6%) was awarded to the wife. The wife was also awarded 24 shares of Standard Oil stock, sterling silver, bedroom set and certain plates as her non-marital property. The trial court found the two-year-old child required $2,500 monthly support from his father and the wife required maintenance for five years until the child attends school full time and then for her rehabilitation. For these purposes, the court awarded $4,000 per month in unallocated support for a period of 60 months.

The wife argues first that the judgment limited the husband's obligation for child support to 60 months, when the child will still not be emancipated, and was against public policy.

In Illinois, the parental duty of support generally extends until a child's emancipation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties or expressly provided in the judgment. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 40, par. 510(c); Finley v. Finley (1980), 81 Ill.2d 317, 325, 410 N.E.2d 12.) It is clear, and the parties both state, they have not agreed to such termination at the end of the 60 month period and neither does the judgment so provide. The judgment at first expressly provided that when maintenance for the wife ceased after 60 monthly payments the husband would remain liable for support of their child in an amount to be determined by agreement or court order. That phrase was stricken, however, after an objection by the wife's attorney, the court noting it was only trying by it to prevent an unnecessary court appearance by the parties.

• 1 The wife will not now be heard to complain of any error induced by her conduct. (See Ziebell v. Board of Trustees (1979), 73 Ill. App.3d 894, 392 N.E.2d 101; Martin v. McIntosh (1976), 37 Ill. App.3d 526, 346 N.E.2d 450.) In any event, it is apparent that if the parties cannot agree upon child support after cessation of the unallocated support provided in the decree, such cessation would present a substantial change in circumstances which would permit modification of the judgment for dissolution upon petition of a party (see Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 40, par. 510(a)), and support for the minor child will then be determined by the court.

• 2 The wife next contends the trial court abused its discretion by awarding a disproportionate share of marital property to the husband; that division was as follows:

Husband

West Suburban Cardiologist, Ltd. Stock (50% interest) $ 580,930.00 Pension plan 105,508.00 Profit-sharing plan 85,000.00 Mid America Federal No. 238828779 (Money Market account) 11,051.00 Mid America Federal No. 11-016-0553 (Savings account) 319.00 _____________ $ 782,808.00 Less wife's attorney fees -27,784.90 _____________ Net ................................ $ 755,023.10

Wife

Marital residence, $ 194,000.00 less mortgage -130,000.00 _____________ 64,000.00

Heritage Oaks vacant lot, 150,000.00 less mortgage -22,050.00 _____________ 127,950.00

Sears Roebuck Stock (wife's profit sharing - 122 shares) 3,965.00 Citizen National Bank (checking account) 300.00 _____________ 4,265.00 Net ...


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.