Husband petitioned for reduction of his child support payments. He claimed that his involuntary termination led to his early retirement. He claimed that, at age 64, he no longer earned the same net income that the support amount had been based in 2010. The Court granted the petition. Wife appealed.
The Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court. His lower earned income in retirement should not result in this presumption. There has not been a substantial change in economic fortune resulting in a decreased ability to pay child support.
Husband failed to prove that his financial position in retirement made him less able to pay the full monthly support amount of $3,043. He had a retirement lifestyle for himself, and the funds to support it. This shows his ongoing ability to meet his existing obligation.
His financial security in retirement will not be jeopardized. Not by his drawing upon his retirement funds and other assets to meet his existing child support obligation.
The statutory factors support the original award. The court erred in failing to consider wife’s costs in running the household. And, wife does not have the liquidity that husband does.
In re Marriage of Verhines, 2018 IL App (2d) 171034 (November 20, 2018).