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 Wengielnik

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Third District

January 2, 2020

In re MARRIAGE OF DENISE C. WENGIELNIK, Petitioner-Appellee, and MATTHEW S. WENGIELNIK III, Respondent-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois. Circuit No. 12-D-1570 Honorable Domenica Osterberger, Judge, Presiding.

          JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Lytton and Justice Holdridge concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          SCHMIDT, JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 Respondent, Matthew Wengielnik III, filed a motion to modify his child support obligation. After hearing Matthew's argument, the trial court granted a directed finding to petitioner, Denise Wengielnik, finding no substantial change in circumstances had occurred warranting modification of child support. We affirm.

         ¶ 2 I. FACTS

         ¶ 3 Matthew and Denise divorced in March of 2013. The parties entered into a joint parenting agreement regarding their minor child. The parenting agreement provided Matthew with 82 overnights in 2016.

         ¶ 4 In December of 2016, the parties entered into an allocation of parenting responsibilities and parenting plan judgment. Matthew received additional parenting time with the child as a result. This change amounted to Matthew exercising 130 overnights in odd years and 148 overnights in even numbered years.

         ¶ 5 In October of 2017, Matthew filed a petition to modify child support, stating there had been a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification. The circuit court held a hearing on the motion on August 9, 2018. The arguments revolved around whether the increase in Matthew's parenting time constituted a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to modify his child support obligation. Matthew averred that he need not show how the extra parenting time impacted the financial matters of the parties, instead it was a logical presumption that additional costs were inherent in the increase. He analogized the modification of child support to a modification of parenting time, arguing that pursuant to appellate case law, a modification of parenting time in the amount of 6% was found not to be a minor change. Applying that reasoning, the trial court should find the slightly more than 15% average increase in parenting time between odd and even years to be a substantial change in circumstances.

         ¶ 6 Matthew was the only individual who testified during the hearing. He stated that since the allocation judgment, he had been exercising his parenting time in accordance with said judgment and provided a calendar that evidenced his parenting time. Matthew made clear that he was not exercising parenting time in excess of what was provided for in the allocation judgment. No evidence was provided concerning any change in financial circumstances for either parent or change in the needs of the child. In fact, no financial information whatsoever was provided to the court.

         ¶ 7 On opposing counsel's motion for a directed finding, the circuit court opined,

"THE COURT: *** The substantial change in circumstances contemplated by the modification to child support statute, insofar as it has been addressed by the case law in my view, has not been changed in terms of its use in the new child support statute.
In other words, there has been nothing to suggest to me that there are different considerations for the substantial change in circumstances whether you are under the old or new statute. And I will tell you, even if you were here without a change in the statute, even if you had come in, you know, in January of 2017 and said there was a substantial change in circumstances merely because of the number of extra days that dad has, I would not have found a substantial change in circumstances, wouldn't have done it, because you haven't shown me how there is a substantial change in circumstances that affects the child support issue.
I understand your argument about the Court's assessment of a substantial change in circumstances vis-a-vis the modification of parenting time, and the trouble I have with that is that it is the same phrase but different circumstances that are relevant to each of the statutes. So, in other words, a substantial change in circumstances, insofar as modification of parenting time is concerned, has to take into consideration different components than a substantial change in circumstances as it relates to child support.
So[, ] it is not an apple to apple comparison, it's an apples to oranges comparison. *** I find that a substantial change in circumstances-when the substantial change in circumstances relates to a modification of child support necessarily has to encompass a monetary issue, and you ...

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.