Review

Review

___Abuse of Discretion
   Defendant failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in modifying a divorce decree.  Harding v. Harding

Discretion of Court
   The modification of child support provisions rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be interfered with in the absence of an abuse of that discretion or unless a manifest injustice has been done.  In re Runge
   Although the modification or termination of alimony provisions in a divorce decree rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, such a modification or termination must not be made arbitrarily or capriciously, but rather must be equitable and must be based upon a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties.  Gorman v. Gorman
   Modification of a divorce decree rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and courts of review will not disturb its findings unless the evidence clearly so requires.  Dendrinos v. Dendrinos
   Whether the alimony to be paid by the defendant should have been terminated rested in the sound discretion of the court.  Tan v. Tan
   Alteration of an order respecting support payments rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and unless the record shows an abuse of that discretion such an order will generally not be disturbed on review.  Edwards v. Edwards
   The modification of provisions for the payment of alimony and child support rests in the sound discretion of the court and a reviewing court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion in the absence of its abuse.  Scalfaro v. Scalfaro

___Insufficient Record
   Where there was no indication of the court’s judgment concerning the evidence on husband’s allegedly greater income, wife’s allegedly greater need, and the causes underlying such but the record merely consisted of the testimony of the parties, the argument of their counsel, and general “findings” in the order, then the appeallate court was unable to assess the validity of the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case to give the circuit court the 9pportunity to indicate on the record its rational underlying the exercise of discretion which it undertook.  In re Chalkley

___New Hearing Required
   Where the statements of the circuit court reflected that it did not give appropriate significance to the evidence and was laboring under the misconception of the law applicable to a petition for modification of support and attorney’s fees, that misconception deprived the wife of fair hearings on her petition and entitled wife to new hearing.   Powers v. Powers

___Standard
   The findings of the trial court in an action to increase support payments will not be reversed unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.  Grinton v. Grinton

Settlement Agreement
   If parties to a marital settlement agreement intend, on dissolution, to preclude judicial modification of maintenance as to amount, it may be better practice to do so in clear and express terms in a paragraph separate from that limiting termination of maintenance.  In re Brent
   While maintenance provision are modifiable upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances, property settlement provisions are not, unless a court finds the execution of the settlement agreement was accompanied by some element of fraud, coercion or misrepresentation.  In re Munford
   Where the agreement contained no provision which specifically precluded modification, the agreement was modifiable.  In re Martino
   Once an agreement is embodied in a divorce decree, its terms will not be modified absent fraud, coercion or contrariness to public policy.  In re Roth.
   The power of the court to modify periodic payments of maintenance and child support is not diminished because the amount of payments was fixed by a settlement agreement agreed to by the parties and incorporated in the decree.  Potocki v. Potocki

Standing
   The Department of Public Aid had standing to bring a petition to modify a child support obligation on behalf of a public aid recipients without regard to any assignment of an arrearage to the Department.  Illinois Dep’t of Pub. Aid ex rel. Marshall v. Ringo
   The filing of a petition to modify a child support obligation is a support service contemplated under the Public Aid Code (305 ILCS 5/10-1 et seq.) providing the department with standing to file a petition.  Illinois Dep’t of Pub. Aid ex rel. Marshall v. Ringo

Back to 750 ILCS 5/510 Home Page