Extraordinary Circumstances

Extraordinary Circumstances

___Not Shown
   It was unnecessary for the court to make any findings as to matters on the economic circumstances of the parties since the date the judgment of dissolution was entered where the record reflected that following the remand order no extraordinary circumstances had arisen.  In re Jones

Failure to Pay
   Where the court found husband was able to make payment to wife but had chosen to spend his money in other ways, the trial court’s determination that husband’s failure to pay was willful certainly was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding husband in contempt and sentencing him to 30 days in jail.  In re Dunseth
   The power of a court to enforce payment for child support by contempt is limited to cases of willful and contumacious refusal to obey, the order of the court.  In re Lavelle
   Where the record supported the husband’s contention that his non-payment was due to a lack of sufficient income respondent’s failure to maintain health insurance or his failure to pay medical expenses not covered by insurance was willful and contumacious.  In re Lavelle
   While it was true that the husband did not make his payments through the clerk’s office, the court found that the parties had a mutual agreement whereby respondent would make the payments directly to petitioner, the husband’s failure to make payment through the clerk’s office did not constitute contempt when petitioner at the least acquiesced in such method of payment if not encouraged payment directly to her.  In re Lavelle
   Where petitioner reduced his maintenance and support payments without authorization from the court, and failed to satisfactorily establish that his failure to pay was due to his financial inability to pay, the judgment finding petitioner in contempt of court was affirmed.  In re Eisentstein
   Mere absence of compliance with the provisions of the decree is not sufficient basis for a judgment of contempt of court unless the evidence shows the failure to comply was a willful and contumacious refusal to obey the court order.  Giamanco v. Giamanco
   A court should have considered the defendant’s financial condition at the time of the contempt hearing to determine whether his failure to pay was willful and contumacious.  Giamanco v. Giamanco

Failure to Reserve Right to Modification
   A court can modify a maintenance order when the order sought to be modified does not expressly reserve the right of the court to review that order at some future time.  In re Carpel

Filing
   The Illinois General Assembly, in moving the “due notice” phrase from one location to another, changed the law as it had been previously interpreted by this state’s judiciary, the filing date of the modification petition is no longer the earliest point to which a retroactive modification of maintenance or support payments may be ordered; rather, consistent with the Federal mandate, the earliest point to which retroactive modification of maintenance or support payments may be ordered is the date on which the non-moving party receives “due notice” from the moving party of the filing of the modification petition.  In re Hawking

Final Order
   Circuit court’s order, which ordered the payment each month of maintenance in a fixed amount but, because of circumstances shown by the evidence, reserved review of the decision for modification two years or less after the order was entered, was final and appeal able.  In re Cannon
   The legislative pronouncement contained in subsection (a) of this section requires that judgments in dissolution proceedings be accorded the same degree or status of finality that is accorded to judgments in other proceedings; otherwise, the integrity of judgments in dissolution proceedings would be subject to erosion.  King v. King
   A decree of divorce is final as to the circumstances and conditions of the parties on the date of its entry; upon a subsequent application for a modification only matters which have occurred subsequent to the entry of the decree may be considered by the court.  Louthan v. Louthan
   It has long been recognized that a decree in the divorce case is final as to conditions then existing.  Maupin v. Maupin

Foreign Court’s Modification
   One state must recognize a sister state’s judgment to the degree that it is non-modifiable, and the second forum must apply the first forum’s law to determine the extent of modification; thus, to determine the degree to which an Illinois decree is modifiable, the foreign court should refer to this section.  Sullivan v. Sullivan

Back to 750 ILCS 5/510 Home Page