Sharp, In re

• Decision Date: 20 November 1978
• Docket Number: No. 78-171,78-171
• Citation: Sharp, In re, 382 N.E.2d 1279, 65 Ill.App.3d 945, 22 Ill.Dec. 581 (Ill. App. 1978)
• Parties: , 22 Ill.Dec. 581 In re the Support of Jill and Brenda SHARP.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1279

382 N.E.2d 1279

65 Ill.App.3d 945, 22 Ill.Dec. 581

In re the Support of Jill and Brenda SHARP.

No. 78-171.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Nov. 20, 1978.

Lindholm & Williamson, Peoria, for appellant.

Glenn J. Church, Glenn J. Church, Ltd., Peoria, for appellee.

SCOTT, Justice:

The parties to this appeal are Stephen Eugene Sharp, appellant-respondent, and Sue Sharp Elliott, appellee-petitioner. The parties were divorced in the circuit court of Sangamon County on April 14, 1964, at which time the appellee-petitioner was given permanent custody of the parties' minor children, Jill and Brenda, and awarded the sum of $150 per month for their support. Thereafter, the award of child support was modified on two occasions, each time increasing the liability of appellant-respondent. On the latter occasion, February 5, 1975, the circuit court of Peoria County entered an order modifying the child support payments and dismissed "with prejudice" a claim for higher education expenses of both daughters.

The proceeding that led to this appeal was initiated by the appellee-petitioner filing a petition for an increase in child support and for post high-school education expenses of daughter Jill. Said petition was filed December 12, 1977, and on March 27, 1978, the trial court entered the order increasing again the support liability of appellant-respondent and allowing payment of appellee-petitioner's attorney fees by appellant-respondent. Notice of appeal was filed and thereafter the circuit court ordered additional payment of appellee-petitioner's attorney fees, thereby granting a portion of the award petitioned for.

The appellant-respondent alleges four different grounds for error in pursuing this appeal. The first issue is whether the claims for post high-school educational expenses for both daughters were rendered res judicata by reason of a prior order of the court. In a modification decree of February 5, 1975, by the circuit court of Peoria County, a request to pay the higher education expenses of both minor daughters, Jill and Brenda, was dismissed "with prejudice." Appellant-respondent contends that this dismissal "with prejudice" renders the issue of his responsibility for education expenses res judicata. The child support responsibilities of parenthood are not so easily avoided.

In Illinois, "(a)limony and child support are continuing obligations subject to change as the conditions and circumstances of the parties may warrant." (In re Fisher (1958), 15 Ill.2d 139, 153 N.E.2d 832, 839.) The policy of the courts has been, in light of the Fisher decision, that in an application for modification or termination of support the only inquiry should be whether sufficient cause has intervened since the entry of the decree to authorize the court to change the allowance. (Swanson v. Swanson (1977), 51 Ill.App.3d 999, 10 Ill.Dec. 124, 367 N.E.2d 512.) When determining whether there is sufficient cause, courts consider both the circumstances of the parents and the circumstances of the children. (Sullivan v. Sullivan (1978),57 Ill.App.3d 958, 15 Ill.Dec. 483, 373 N.E.2d 829.) Only if these circumstances have changed since the time of the original decree is it proper for the court to order a modification of child support. The original decree awarding child support payments is res judicata so long as there is no change in the circumstances underlying the decree. (Nordstrom v. Nordstrom (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 181, 343 N.E.2d 640.) New or changed conditions are necessary to warrant a change in support payments. (Sullivan v. Sullivan.) And further, those new or changed circumstances must be material or substantial. (Sullivan v. Sullivan.)

The threshold requirement that must be met before the court can award a modification of child support is a showing that material or substantial changes have occurred since the original decree was rendered. The judgment embodied in the original decree is not res judicata if the petitioning party presents proof of changed conditions, regardless of the recital of the phrase, "with prejudice", in the previous order. A court may not foreclose in advance the future consideration of matters pertaining to the welfare of children of divorced parents. The power of the court to modify judgments as to child support is expressly granted by the legislature and regulated by statute. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 40, sec. 510.) (Kaiser v. Kaiser (1941), 310 Ill.App. 390, 34 N.E.2d 127.) The trial court did not err in refusing to hold that the claim for support payments was res judicata.

Appellant-respondent next contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding increased child support, educational and medical expenses, and by failing to take into consideration the income of the appellee-petitioner's second husband. It is helpful here to review the standard which the trial court is to employ in the exercise of its discretion. Only after examining the position taken by this court in regard to changed circumstances, and what will constitute changed circumstances can we determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding increased support.

We first faced the issue with the case of Kelleher v. Kelleher (1966), 67 Ill.App.2d 410, 214 N.E.2d 139, 141. At that time we said, "The issue on a hearing for a petition to modify a divorce decree * * * is whether there have been material changes in the circumstances of the parties since the entry of the divorce decree. An increase in monthly support payments is warranted when the evidence establishes that the needs of the children have increased, and the means of the father have also increased so as to enable him to contribute additional sums to his children's support." The Kelleher test is in the conjunctive, and the language of the decision is so unambiguous as to foreclose any argument that the conjunctive "and" was used inadvertently for the disjunctive "or." Under Kelleher the petitioner must show Both an increased need And a corresponding increased ability to pay before the court can modify a judgment ordering child support. ¹ The Kelleher authority commanded unwavering adherence for more than ten years. Grinton v. Grinton (1970), 131 Ill.App.2d 684, 264 N.E.2d 845; Page v. Page (1975), 30 Ill.App.3d 514, 334 N.E.2d 212; Daniels v. Daniels (1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 697, 348 N.E.2d 259; Cross v. Cross (1977), 48 Ill.App.3d 1055, 7 Ill.Dec. 12, 363 N.E.2d 933.

The 1977 term of court witnessed a shift in focus from the rigid language of Kelleher to the more flexible standard of Swanson v. Swanson (1977), 51 Ill.App.3d 999, 10 Ill.Dec. 124, 125, 367 N.E.2d 512, 513. In Swanson, Justice Barry wrote that "child support is to be determined 'by accommodating the needs of the children with the available means of the parties'." Furthermore, the "increased needs of the children (could) be presumed from the facts that the children (had) grown older and the cost of living (had) risen (Swanson v. Swanson )." Although the court in Swanson was divided, there was unanimity as to the standard to be applied, and that standard is as set forth above.

The Swanson decision does not represent a radical departure from prior decisions. It is still incumbent upon the court to consider Both the needs of the children And the ability of the former spouses to pay when considering a petition to increase child support. But, instead of marching in step to some precise equation of percentage change, the court considers the children's needs as ranging from the bare necessities to the practical, to the useful, to the luxurious. Similarly, the court considers whether the means of each spouse has changed absolutely, has changed relative to the other, and has changed relative to the children's needs. The court must then accommodate, or adapt, or harmonize all these considerations to determine whether an increase in support is justified. Child support payments must necessarily reflect a balance of the intensity of the child's need with the ability of the parents to provide for that need. When a material change has occurred creating a substantial imbalance between the child's needs and the parent's support capabilities, then the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act as well as the Swanson decision require modification. Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 40, sec. 510(a).

In a recent decision, Sullivan v. Sullivan (1978), 57 Ill.App.3d 958, 15 Ill.Dec. 483, 486, 373 N.E.2d 829, 832, we applied the flexible Swanson standard while acknowledging the vitality of the Kelleher requirement that the court consider both the needs of the children and the ability of the parents to pay. The party in Sullivan petitioning for an increase in child support payments demonstrated an increase in the needs of the children with evidence of "a variety of expenses including specific dollar amounts for some items and estimates for others." In addition, evidence was presented that the contributing parent's gross income had increased from $17,700 per year to $50,550 per year, while the custodial parent took home only $114 per week. Based on this proof, we held that "a material change in circumstances had occurred since the entry of the prior order and the trial court abused its discretion in denying * * * additional child support * * *." (Sullivan v. Sullivan (1978), 57 Ill.App.3d 958, 15 Ill.Dec. 483, 487, 373 N.E.2d 829, 833.) A substantial imbalance required additional child support.

In the case at bar, the court heard evidence that appellant-respondent's income had increased from $27,375 per year to $34,600 per year, while the appellee-petitioner took home only $70 per week. Also, the court heard evidence that the children's expenses, particularly for educational and medical needs, had increased by significant amounts. The court considered both the needs of the children and the ability of the parents to pay, thus satisfying Kelleher, and found that material changes in circumstances...