(2-24)

No. 3--02--0946

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2004

JUSTICE BARRY delivered the opinion of the court:

The parties were divorced in 1999. Carol was awarded physicalcustody of their son, Kevin. Steven was required to pay childsupport in the amount of the dependency allowance he received fromthe United States Army. At the time of the dissolution, Steven'sdependency allowance was $200 per month.

On July 12, 2001, Carol filed a petition to modify childsupport. In her petition, Carol claimed that Steven was no longeremployed by the United States Army, and he had experienced asubstantial increase in income since his discharge from active duty. Carol asserted that the current child support amount was notsufficient due to increases in the cost of living and the increasedage of the child. Carol also sought attorney fees she incurred inpursuing the modification of child support.

On March 13, 2002, Carol's attorney, James Mertes, filed anotice of hearing for March 18, 2002, at 9 a.m. Steven's attorney,Ronald Stradt, filed and served a motion for extension of time. Stradt asserted that he received the notice of hearing on Friday,March 15, and that he was unable to attend the hearing on March 18due to scheduling conflicts. The motion for extension of time wassent to Mertes by mail and by facsimile on March 15. Stradt alsoattempted to contact Mertes by telephone on March 15. Mertes was notin his office, so Stradt left a message indicating that he could notbe present for the hearing on March 18. Nonetheless, Mertesproceeded with the hearing and sought a default judgment. AlthoughStradt's motion for extension of time made it to the circuit clerk'soffice on March 18, it obviously did not make its way to the courtfile before the hearing. The trial court, unaware of the motion forextension of time, entered an order granting an increase in childsupport. Stradt subsequently filed a motion to vacate the order, andthe order was vacated after a hearing.

Steven then filed a financial disclosure statement in which hereported net monthly income of $3,079.78 as of March 27, 2002. Hedisclosed $2,365.01 in monthly living expenses, including his $200per month child support payment. On May 15, 2002, Steven filed anotice stating that he had voluntarily terminated his employment topursue "enhanced career opportunities in Germany."

Carol reported $200 per month in income from child supportpayments, and $2,642.37 in monthly living expenses in her financialdisclosure statement. She also listed a savings account with abalance of $74,000.

A hearing on the petition was held on July 22, 2002. Steventestified that he moved to Germany in June of 2002, but he had notyet found employment. Prior to moving to Germany, Steven wasemployed as a television news helicopter pilot in Washington D.C.,earning $55,000 per year. Steven testified that he moved because hebelieved he would have enhanced career opportunities in Germany, andhis girlfriend lived there.

Mertes filed an affidavit of attorney fees, asserting that hehad spent 7.3 hours on this matter and his customary charge for theseservices was $150 per hour. Therefore, his fees were $1,095.

The trial court found that a substantial change incircumstances had occurred in that both the needs of the child andSteven's income had increased since the entry of the judgment ofdissolution. Therefore, the court modified Steven's child supportobligation to $287.03 every two weeks. The court also awarded Carol$250 in attorney fees.

On appeal, Steven contends that the trial court erred ingranting an increase in his child support obligation because noevidence was offered to show that the child's needs had changed orthat he had experienced an increased ability to pay child support.

A child support order may be modified upon a showing of asubstantial change in circumstances. 750 ILCS 5/510(a) (West 2000). To establish a substantial change in circumstances, the petitionermust show an increase in the noncustodial parent's ability to pay andan increase in the needs of the child since the court's previousorder. In re Marriage of Schmerold, 88 Ill. App. 3d 348, 410 N.E.2d629 (1980). Courts may presume that the needs of children increaseas they grow older and as the cost of living rises. In re Marriageof Pylawka, 277 Ill. App. 3d 728, 661 N.E.2d 505 (1996). A trialcourt's decision concerning modification of child support will not bedisturbed absent an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Sassano,337 Ill. App. 3d 186, 785 N.E.2d 1058 (2003).

In this case, the initial child support obligation wasestablished in 1999. The modification was granted in 2002. Giventhis passage of time, we presume that the child's needs haveincreased as he has grown older and the cost of living has risen.

With regard to his ability to pay child support, Steven admitsin his brief that his income has increased. Nonetheless, he arguesthat his ability to pay child support has not increased because thecost of living in Washington D.C. is higher than the cost of livingat his previous residence in the Quad Cities.

Initially, we note that the trial court set Steven's childsupport obligation in accordance with the statutory guidelines whenit granted the modification. See 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(1) (West 2000). The statutory guidelines create a rebuttable presumption that thespecified percentage of the supporting parent's income represents anappropriate child support award. In re Marriage of Freesen, 275 Ill.App. 3d 97, 655 N.E.2d 1144 (1995). The guidelines apply regardlessof whether the obligor lives in a high cost area typical of largecities, or in an area with a lower cost of living. Because theobligor's cost of living is not considered in setting child support,we find that the trial court properly declined to consider Steven'scost of living in determining whether he had experienced an increasedability to pay.

Additionally, Steven's financial disclosure statement indicatesthat he had the ability to pay the increased child support amount ashis monthly income exceeded his expenses by more than $700. Moreover, an increase in child support from the previous obligationof $200 per month is clearly justified based on Steven's income of$55,000 per year. Based on this record, we conclude that the trialcourt did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was asubstantial change of circumstances justifying an increase in thechild support obligation.

Steven also contends that the trial court abused its discretionin setting child support based on his income from his prioremployment. Steven claims that the court did not have authority toset child support based on his prior income while he was unemployed.

It is well established that courts have the authority to compelparties to pay child support at a level commensurate with theirearning potential. In re Marriage of Sweet, 316 Ill. App. 3d 101,735 N.E.2d 1037 (2000). A court may impute additional income to anoncustodial parent who is voluntarily underemployed. Sweet, 316Ill. App. 3d 101, 735 N.E.2d 1037.

In this case, Steven voluntarily terminated his employment inWashington D.C. because he had better career prospects in Germany. As shown by his testimony, Steven was confident that he would make more moneyin Germany. Therefore, it appears that he received a benefit fromsetting child support based on his prior income, which was lower thanhis expected future income. In any event, we find that the trialcourt did not exceed its authority in setting child support based onSteven's prior income because he was voluntarily unemployed and hisprior income reflected his earning potential.

Steven also asserts that the court erred in awarding Carolattorney fees because she did not demonstrate that she wasfinancially unable to pay.

The primary obligation for payment of attorney fees rests uponthe party for whom the services are rendered. In re Marriage ofMantei, 222 Ill. App. 3d 933, 583 N.E.2d 1192 (1991). However, thecourt may order one spouse to pay some or all of the attorney feesincurred by the other. 750 ILCS 5/508 (West 2000). In order tojustify an award of attorney fees, the party seeking the award mustdemonstrate both financial inability to pay the fees and the abilityof the other spouse to do so. In re Marriage of Cotton, 103 Ill. 2d346, 469 N.E.2d 1077 (1984).

In this case, Carol's financial disclosure statement indicatesthat she had a savings account with a balance of $74,000, as well asother financial assets. We conclude that the trial court erred inawarding Carol attorney fees because the record shows that she hadthe ability to pay her own attorney fees upon seeking the defaultjudgment.

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the award of attorney feesto Carol, but otherwise affirm the judgment of the Whiteside Countycircuit court.

Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

LYTTON, J. concurring with SCHMIDT, J. specially concurring.

JUSTICE SCHMIDT, specially concurring:

I concur, but write separately because I feel compelled to comment on the circumstances of the default judgment that was entered in this case. Steve's attorney, Ronald Stradt, has his offices in Springfield, Illinois, a considerable distance from Whiteside County. Carol's attorney filed notice of the March 18 hearing on March 13, three working days before the hearing date. Stradt, apparently a busy trial attorney, was unaware of the notice of hearing until March 15, the Friday before the hearing. It seems clear from the record that Carol's attorney did not consult with Stradt before scheduling the hearing. Carol's attorney could have prevented the waste of resources that occurred as a result of the entry of the default judgment by setting a mutually agreeable date for the hearing, or by agreeing to a continuance after receiving the motion for extension of time and telephone message from Stradt. Instead, he proceeded with the hearing and sought and secured a default judgment. Once the trial court became aware that Stradt had, before the March 18 hearing, filed a motion seeking to continue the hearing, it appropriately vacated the default judgment.

In the interest of promoting civility in the legal profession, I note that a simple professional courtesy would have avoided the needless litigation related to the entry of the default judgment in this case.

Certainly, Carol's attorney did not violate any rules of court in setting the motion for hearing as he did. Maybe that is part of the bigger problem. The Fifth Judicial Circuit has a wonderful local rule which prevents the type of conduct of which I complain here. The rule states as follows:

"Coordination of Hearing Date. It is the responsibility of counsel preparing the notice of hearing to make a  good faith effort to coordinate with the court and all opposing counsel to set the hearing at a time that is mutually convenient. The filing of the notice of hearing shall constitute a certification of compliance with this rule." 5th Judicial Cir. Ct. R. IV(A)(6) (eff. November 3, 1997).

The Tenth Judicial Circuit of Illinois has a similar rule that also applies to notices of depositions. 10th Judicial Cir. Ct. R. 3.5 (adopted March 17, 2003). However, even in the absence of such a formal rule, exercising the courtesy required by that rule would not only avoid needless waste of resources and promote a more collegial relationship between opposing counsel, but it would undoubtedly also reduce the amount of antacids and blood pressure medication consumed by trial lawyers.