Davis v. Fields

• Decision Date: 13 December 2019
• Docket Number: NO. 4-19-0362,4-19-0362
• Citation: 2019 IL App (4th) 190362 -U
• Parties: AMANDA R. DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER FIELDS, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2019 IL App (4th) 190362-U

AMANDA R. DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER FIELDS, Respondent-Appellant.

NO. 4-19-0362

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

December 13, 2019

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County

No. 05F382

Honorable Matthew Maurer, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Steigmann and Turner concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court did not err in finding a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of child support, modifying the parties' support obligations, or ordering the father to pay half of the minor's educational expenses.

¶ 2 In May 2019, the trial court ordered respondent, Christopher Fields, to pay $568.77 per month in child support and, in addition to his basic support obligation, equally contribute to the minor child's expenses for a private school education.

¶ 3 On appeal, Christopher argues the trial court erred in ordering him to pay one-half of the minor child's educational expenses by (1) relying on insufficient evidence to find a substantial change of circumstances existed, (2) failing to set child support pursuant to the child support guidelines, and (3) deviating from the child support guidelines without providing a proper legal or factual basis to support a deviation or taking into consideration the disparities between the parties' household incomes.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 In June 2005, petitioner, Amanda R. Davis, filed a petition pursuant to the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984 (750 ILCS 45/1 et seq. (West 2004)) to determine the existence of the father-and-child relationship with respect to her minor child, A.D., who was born in 2005. The parties were not married at the time the minor was born and had not married thereafter. The petition named Christopher as the presumed father of A.D. and sought the initiation of child support payments.

¶ 6 In November 2005, after a deoxyribonucleic acid test established Christopher as A.D.'s father, the trial court entered an order establishing a parent-child relationship between A.D. and Christopher. One month later, the court entered a child support order requiring Christopher to pay $1201.20 per month in child support and $336 per month for one-half of A.D.'s day care expenses. After granting Amanda's motion to reconsider, the court also required Christopher to pay $240 per month in child support arrearages, which included support retroactive to June 2005.

¶ 7 In July 2008, the trial court entered an agreed order modifying Christopher's child support obligation to $248.73 per pay period, which occurred every other week, and adjusted his day care expenses to $216.66 per month. The modification reflected a change in Christopher's circumstances, as he had moved and changed jobs to be closer to A.D. The trial court also entered agreed orders in November 2010 and August 2015, which ended Christopher's day care obligation and required him to pay child support in the amount of $298.62 per biweekly pay period (or $647.01 per month).

¶ 8 Amanda filed a motion to modify child support on September 20, 2018, alleging a substantial change in circumstances warranted a modification because she believed Christopher'sincome had increased and A.D.'s needs had increased, particularly because she was attending private school. The trial court held a bench trial on May 8, 2019. During the trial, Christopher presented an exhibit calculating each party's child support obligations. Christopher estimated his obligation to be $568.77 per month, which represented his basic support obligation after adjusting for his two other children. The court also admitted both parties' financial affidavits as exhibits. Amanda's financial affidavit, dated May 8, 2018, states her gross income is $5580.60 per month and her expenses and debts total $8481.52 per month. Her debts include student loans, legal fees, and credit card balances. Christopher's financial affidavit, dated May 3, 2019, shows his gross income is $6022.33 per month and his net monthly income is $4802.85. His expenses total $5990.99 per month. He reported no outstanding debts. Additionally, documents attached to his affidavit showed his gross wages during 2018 were $67,031.27 and his gross earnings in 2019 were $2780.42 per pay period.

¶ 9 The record does not include a transcript of the hearing; however, the trial court's docket entry for the bench trial states the following:

"The [c]ourt has considered the exhibits, testimony, and statutory factors. The [c]ourt finds there is a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification of support. The [c]ourt finds Petitioner's testimony credible. The [c]ourt sets Respondent's child support in the amount of $568.77 commencing September 20, 2018[,] which is in fact lower as a result of the change in child support laws; however, the child support expenses are substantially more. The [c]ourt orders the parties equally share the expenses for Springfield Christian School (SCS) commencing September 20,2018[,] and Lutheran High School (LHS) for school year 2019 and thereafter, plus any school registration fees and application fees each year. Petitioner shall continue to be responsible for all of the minor child's extracurricular activities.

Petitioner testified credibly as to the monthly cost of $549.00 she is incurring for SCS and relief is retroactive to the filing of the petition on September 20, 2018. No testimony or evidence was presented to contradict or dispute her testimony. The [c]ourt finds it is in the best interest of the child that she attend SCS and LHS as a result of problems and issues experienced by the child. The [c]ourt believes Respondent considers it is in the best interest that the child attend private school but does not want to pay for it.

The Petitioner's gross income is $5,580.60 per month and her husband's net income [per year] is $62,328.00. He contributes towards monthly expenses. The Respondent's gross income per month is $6,022.33. His wife earns a gross income of $45,000.00 per year. She contributes towards the monthly expenses. The Respondent has minimal debt. The Petitioner has one other child and the Respondent has two other children."

¶ 10 On May 23, 2019, the trial court formally granted Amanda's motion to modify child support and entered an order requiring Christopher to pay $568.77 per month in child support and one-half of A.D.'s educational expenses. In addition to the findings noted in thecourt's docket entry, the order states a substantial change of circumstances existed "as the minor child's expenses have increased." The court also noted Amanda's testimony showed A.D. had "issues" at the public school she previously attended and SCS had smaller class sizes. The court found the change in schools was positive and in the best interests of the minor.

¶ 11 This appeal followed.

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 A. Supreme Court Rule Violations

¶ 14 Before addressing the merits of the case, we first address Christopher's violations of our supreme court rules. In doing so, we remind the parties that our supreme court rules are "not mere suggestions." Niewold v. Fry, 306 Ill. App. 3d 735, 737, 714 N.E.2d 1082, 1084 (1999). " 'They have the force of law, and the presumption must be that they will be obeyed and enforced as written.' " Billerbeck v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 292 Ill. App. 3d 350, 353, 685 N.E.2d 1018, 1020 (1997) (quoting Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 210, 652 N.E.2d 275, 277-78 (1995)).

¶ 15 1. Sufficiency of the Record

¶ 16 Amanda contends the record in this matter is deficient because it does not include a report of the proceedings, and, as a result, the record should be construed against Christopher. We agree.

¶ 17 "[T]o support a claim of error, the appellant has the burden to present a sufficiently complete record." In re Marriage of Gulla, 234 Ill. 2d 414, 422, 917 N.E.2d 392, 397 (2009). " 'An issue relating to a circuit court's factual findings and basis of its legal conclusions obviously cannot be reviewed absent a report or record of the proceeding.' [Citation.]" Gulla, 234 Ill. 2d at 422. Further, a party's factual "assertions in an appellate brief cannot serve as asubstitute for a proper record." Coombs v. Wisconsin National Life Insurance Co., 111 Ill. App. 3d 745, 746, 444 N.E.2d 643, 644 (1982). "Any doubts which may arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant." Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 392, 459 N.E.2d 958, 959 (1984). "Without an adequate record preserving the claimed error, the court of review must presume the circuit court's order had a sufficient factual basis and that it conforms with the law." Gulla, 234 Ill. 2d at 422.

¶ 18 Here, the trial court's docket entry for the May 2019 bench trial states, "[t]he court has considered the exhibits, testimony, and statutory factors" in making its decision. While the record before this court includes the exhibits admitted during the bench trial, the record contains no transcript of the hearing, bystander's report, or agreed statement of facts. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 323 (eff. July 1, 2017). Accordingly, the testimony regarding the basis for modifying the child support payments and requiring Christopher to pay one-half of A.D.'s educational expenses is not before this court. As a result, to the extent Christopher challenges the sufficiency of the trial court's findings, the deficiencies in the record will be construed against him, and we will presume the trial court's order was properly supported by evidence and conforms to the law. Cf. Gulla, 234 Ill. 2d at 422.

¶ 19 2. Rule 23 Orders

¶ 20 We also note, Christopher cited and compares this case to an unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 (eff. Apr. 1, 2018) that is...