Husband did not work regularly for a number of years. Husband filed for divorce. He asked for permanent maintenance from Wife. Husband had attempted suicide. Later he went through psychiatric treatment.
At trial, the parties agreed to terms for Husband’s ability to work. They agreed that he is not disabled. They also agreed that he is capable of employment. The court said that Husband shall look for full time employment. He shall apply for 7 jobs per week.
Also, the court ordered that Husband shall give copies to Wife of his applications and any responses. Also, he shall make a copy of the job search diary on a weekly basis.
Husband did not look for work. Wife took him back to Court. Husband said that he was simply not capable of looking for work in his condition. The court gave him permanent maintenance.
Husband appealed. Husband argued that the Court did not consider all sources of Wife’s income in calculating maintenance. The Appellate Court agreed. Court found that Wife should have included income that she received every year from her father. Also, she has other sources of income. “Gross income” for purposes of maintenance means all income from all sources.
Husband also claimed that the Court was wrong to say he was voluntarily not employed. The Appellate Court said that he was definitely voluntarily underemployed. Husband had failed to look for a position in his field of training (chemistry). Husband made no attempt to gain employment in the field since leaving it years ago. Also, Husband had no evidence for his claim that he could not look for positions in chemistry. He said this was because he was 56 years old and is many years removed from the field.
The Appellate Court imputed income, or said he was capable of earning a certain amount of money. The court did not agree that he could not work. The case was returned to the trial court to redo the maintenance calculations.
In re Marriage of Ruvola, 2017 IL App (2d) 160737, June 27, 2017.
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!