Heflin v. Heflin

2018 IL App (4th) 170812-U

In re MARRIAGE OF RON HEFLIN, Petitioner-Appellee, and LISA HEFLIN, Respondent-Appellant.

NO. 4-17-0812

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

September 21, 2018

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 Macoupin County

No. 10D222

Honorable Kenneth R. Deihl, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices DeArmond and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court held the trial court properly applied the pre-amendment version of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act when the evidence was closed before the effective date of the amendments, agreeing with In re Marriage of Cole, 2016 IL App (5th) 150224, 58 N.E.3d 1286. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding husband reimbursement for various expenses for the children, the children's college savings plans, and the income tax dependency exemptions.

¶ 2 In October 2017, the trial court entered an order awarding petitioner, Ron Heflin, $33,478.64 in back child support, school, extracurricular, and medical expenses, and ordering his ex-wife, Lisa Heflin, to place their two children's college savings plans in Ron's name.

¶ 3 Lisa appeals, arguing the trial court (1) erred in applying the 2016 version of section 505 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (the Act) (750 ILCS 5/505 (West 2016)) when calculating child support, (2) abused its discretion by granting Ron administration of the children's 529 savings plans, (3) erred by awarding Ron reimbursement for cell phone charges, (4) abused its discretion when calculating medical, school, and extracurricular expenses, and (5) erred by allowing Ron to claim the children on his taxes for 2016 and all years thereafter. We disagree and affirm.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 A. The Dissolution of Marriage

¶ 6 In September 2010, Ron Heflin filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Ron had been married to Lisa since 1985, and the couple had two children, E.H. (born March 1998) and K.H. (born September 2000).

¶ 7 In July 2013, a final judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered. The judgment of dissolution provided the parties would share custody equally with the children, alternating weeks with each parent. The children were to remain on Ron's health insurance with Lisa reimbursing him for one-half of the premiums. The parties were to evenly split "[a]ll reasonably necessary medical, dental, vision, orthodontic, psychological counseling, or hospital expenses." The parties were also to evenly split "all school fees" and "all extracurricular activity fees *** from October 2012 forward."

¶ 8 The judgment of dissolution further provided the parties were to evenly divide all medical expenses from November 2011 to October 2012. Lisa was to pay Ron $2100 for his portion of a 2010 tax refund. Finally, the parties' 529 savings plans (529 savings plans are tax-advantaged savings plans designed to encourage saving for future education costs; "529" refers to the section of the Internal Revenue Code permitting the plans) were to remain in Lisa's name for the benefit of the children.

¶ 9 B. The Motion for Enforcement of Judgment

¶ 10 1. Ron's Motion for Enforcement¶ 11 In December 2013, Ron filed a motion to enforce the judgment of dissolution. Ron contended that Lisa had failed to pay the $2100 tax refund, half of the health insurance premiums, half of certain medical expenses, and half of certain school and extracurricular fees as provided in the judgment of dissolution.

¶ 12 2. Lisa's Response and Petition for Rule To Show Cause

¶ 13 In January 2014, Lisa filed a response to Ron's motion for enforcement and requested a rule to show cause and attorney fees. Lisa denied many of the allegations. Specifically, she claimed Ron had withdrawn $2400 from a joint account and therefore owed Lisa $300. Lisa admitted she had not made payments for health insurance but alleged Ron had not provided proper proof of the charges and she could get insurance for the children at a lower rate. Lisa acknowledged the judgment of dissolution required the parties to divide the children's medical and school expenses but asserted Ron in fact owed her for various charges she had incurred. Lisa sought a rule to show cause and attorney fees for having to ask the court to order Ron to comply with the judgment of dissolution.

¶ 14 In May 2014, Lisa filed a petition for rule to show cause, stating the oldest child, E.H., had begun residing exclusively with Ron in contravention of the custody agreement. Lisa stated she had demanded Ron return E.H. in accordance with the custody schedule, but Ron willfully refused.

¶ 15 3. The Trial Court's June 2014 Order

¶ 16 In June 2014, the trial court ruled on the pending motions. The court first reserved the issue of the $2100 tax refund payment, stating it would issue a separate order at a later date. The court then ordered Lisa to reimburse Ron for $2282.04 in health insurance premiums, and the children were to remain on Ron's health insurance. The court thenconsidered the parties' competing claims of expenses owed for the children's medical and school expenses, finding that each party owed the other for certain costs. After balancing the ledgers, Lisa owed Ron $64.80. Accordingly, the court ordered Lisa to pay Ron a total of $2346.84.

¶ 17 The trial court specifically noted that it "denie[d] either party reimbursement for any expense that occurred prior to the Judgment being entered on July 23, 2013." The court ordered each party to pay that party's own attorney fees and did not rule on the issue of E.H.'s custody.

¶ 18 In July 2014, the court ruled on the tax refund issue, awarding $300 to Lisa "pursuant to the set off previously ordered." In August 2014, Ron filed a motion to reconsider the court's ruling.

¶ 19 C. Child Custody

¶ 20 In September 2013, Ron filed a motion to modify child custody, arguing the current arrangement seriously endangered the children's mental and emotional health because Lisa was hostile toward the children. See 750 ILCS 5/610(a), 607 (West 2012). In her response, Lisa denied the allegations.

¶ 21 In October 2013, Lisa filed a motion to dismiss Ron's motion to modify custody because it was filed within two years of the entry of the judgment of dissolution and there was not a change in circumstances. 750 ILCS 5/610(b) (West 2012). Ron responded that his motion to modify was based on the grounds that the current custody arrangement presented a serious endangerment to the children, and therefore, the two-year statutory bar did not apply.

¶ 22 In January 2014, the trial court denied Lisa's motion to dismiss, agreeing that the serious endangerment exception applied. The court stated the motion to modify would be set for a hearing but did not give a date or schedule.

¶ 23 For the next two years, the case languished in litigation. The trial court dealt with multiple other motions and issues not relevant to this appeal, and the parties agreed to continue the evidentiary hearing for various reasons on several occasions.

¶ 24 In July 2015, Ron filed a motion for contempt, arguing Lisa had failed to pay Ron $2282.04 as required by the court's June 2014 order, failed to pay half of the children's health insurance premiums from June 2014 forward, and failed to pay half of the children's medical, school, and extracurricular expenses. Lisa denied these allegations.

¶ 25 In March 2016, the court granted the parties leave to amend the pleadings. Later in March, Ron filed a motion to modify parenting time in which he argued a change in circumstances had occurred because E.H. had reached the age of majority, and K.H.'s grades had deteriorated due to his contentious relationship with his mother. Ron also argued K.H. spent significantly more time with Ron than with Lisa, residing with Ron a majority of the time. In her written response, Lisa admitted the factual allegations in Ron's motion but contended that she had not contributed to the drop in grades. Lisa argued it was in K.H.'s best interest to continue an equal division of parenting time.

¶ 26 In April 2016, Ron filed a motion to modify child support and a motion for support of non-minor child. The motion to modify support simply pointed out that the children had been living primarily with Ron and that Lisa was not dividing the expenses in accordance with the judgment of dissolution. The motion for non-minor support stated E.H. was about to graduate high school and planned on pursuing post-secondary education, for which Lisa should pay Ron living and educational expenses.

¶ 27 Lisa responded that because there had been no change in circumstances, child support was not warranted. Lisa also contended that, while she generally knew E.H. intended topursue education after high school, she did not have any specific information and therefore, the motion for non-minor support was premature.

¶ 28 In January 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing regarding the motion to modify parenting time. The parties each presented testimony of various witnesses. In February 2017, the court entered an order granting the motion, ordering that K.H. reside with Ron at all times except when K.H. wished to see Lisa.

¶ 29 D. The Remaining Motions

¶ 30 In May 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing on all remaining motions, specifically, Ron's July 2014 motion to reconsider the June 2014 order (seeking the $2100 tax refund owed to Ron under the 2013 judgment of dissolution), Ron's 2015 motion for contempt (seeking funds Lisa had not paid to Ron in contravention of the 2013 judgment of dissolution and June 2014 order ordering various payments), and Ron's motions for child support and non-minor support. Instead of presenting live testimony, the parties agreed to submit written arguments and evidence. The court set a briefing...