FindGreatLawyers.com is a unique service. We are Illinois attorneys who since 2001 have focused our practice on helping people...

Illinois Lawyer Referrals and Legal Guidance

Category: Illinois Family Law

New child support formula in Illinois?

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

Illinois is considering joining the majority of states in how they calculate child support payments. Currently, Illinois uses a pretty basic formula, which is just a percentage of income. The percentage of income you owe changes based on how many children you are supporting. It looks like this:

One child          20%

Two children      28%

Three children    32%

Four children     40%

Five children     45%

Six or more       50%

These aren’t set in stone. The court is allowed to consider the whole picture when making a decision, with the most important factor being the best interests of the child or children. All in all, some argue that it’s not as flexible as it should be.

The new formula would officially factor in things like the amount of time a child spends with each parent, as well as the income of both parents (not just the one paying). The goal is to calculate support payments based on what the child would have received, in terms of financial support from their parents, if the couple had stayed married.

Some say the new approach would be more fair. On the other hand, some criticize it for being more subjective. They argue that with more flexibility will come more fighting. The law hasn’t changed yet. It’s merely being proposed. We’ll keep you posted.

3/6/12

FAQ guardianship of an adult

Monday, March 5th, 2012

Guardianship, when we’re talking about an adult, is usually set up in cases of age or illness. You might want guardianship over an elderly parent who suffers from dementia, for example. Guardianship isn’t a quick solution. You will have to go to court and ask a judge, who will want to hear from doctors, as well as any family members who object. Here are some answers to a few questions I often get on this topic:

How do I know when it’s time for guardianship?

If a person can no longer handle their financial affairs or make sound decisions about their care, it might be time to seek guardianship. (If they are still of sound mind, consider talking to them about establishing powers of attorney.) There are two types of guardianship, and you can ask the court to grant you one or both. There is guardianship of the estate, which allows the guardian to handle the ward’s finances, and there is guardianship of the person, which is for things like health care and living arrangements.

Do I have to go to court?

Yes. You have to file documents with the court, including a petition requesting guardianship. There are a lot of steps, which include time for an object from the person you’re seeking guardianship over (called the ward), as well as objections from family members. The judge will want the opinion of an expert (doctor, psychiatrist, etc.) and will consider all facts before making a decision in the best interest of the ward. Because guardianship takes away significant legal rights, the court does not award it without good reason.

Do I need to hire an attorney?

We usually recommend it, because there are a lot of hoops to jump through. An attorney can be especially useful if the ward objects or if family members disagree about who should be named guardian. It’s not impossible to handle on your own, but it can get messy.

Is there any way to set this up ahead of time?

Most attorneys would recommend having powers of attorney in place before a person becomes incapacitated or mentally incompetent. A person must be well, mentally speaking, when signing a power of attorney. If done properly, they automatically put someone else in charge of financial affairs and health care (two separate documents). There is no need to go to court when the time comes to take over that person’s affairs. The main thing to be aware of with a power of attorney is that it has to be someone you trust. And a power of attorney signed under intimidation or force will not be valid. Forms for power of attorney are free on our forms page.

3/5/12

Spousal support can be permanent

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

In Illinois, there are a few different kinds of spousal support. Spousal support is commonly called alimony; Illinois technically calls it “maintenance.” Regardless of the term you use, it refers the payments from one ex-spouse to the other after (or sometimes during) a divorce. The spouse with more resources or financial stability generally pays the spouse with less. In some cases, this can go on for life.

Permanent maintenance is usually seen in cases where two people have been married for a long time (20+ years), and one spouse, at this point in their life, is unable to be financially independent. This could be because of age, health, or lifestyle (a stay-at-home parent, for example). Permanent maintenance generally ends at death or if the spouse receiving payments gets remarried. The amount of maintenance – in any case – depends on the financial situation of each couple. Unlike child support, there is no set formula.

Temporary maintenance might be ordered by the judge to be paid while you’re going through the divorce. It can take a year or more for a divorce to be finalized, and often it makes sense for one spouse to support the other during this time. Temporary maintenance usually ends when the divorce becomes final. At that time, the judge or the agreement between the parties might set a maintenance amount that is the same, or it might be different. Keep in mind that maintenance is not awarded in every case.

Rehabilitative maintenance is a type of spousal support with an end in sight. The purpose is to help the spouse with less financial stability get on their feet. That might mean some education or job training, or just time to find a job. The rehabilitative maintenance might be set to end on a specific date, or upon a specific event (such as when the receiving spouse gets a job, or finishes training). Sometimes, the parties might go back to court to revisit whether rehabilitative-type maintenance is still necessary and if the amount is still appropriate.

Generally, a change in spousal support payments requires a significant change in circumstances. Job loss or illness might change things, although it might just delay payment rather than erase it. If you are paying $1000 a month for five years, for example, and you lose your job, then you might get a break from paying during your unemployment. However, you may have to make up those payments later, perhaps by extending the timeline.

3/2/12

10 Common Myths about Divorce Law in Illinois

Friday, February 17th, 2012

1.  MYTH:  You have to prove some fault by one spouse as grounds for divorce.

It is actually more common these days to have a divorce based on “irreconcilable differences” or “no-fault” divorce.  The way it works in Illinois, is that even though you do not have to show one spouse did something wrong, you do have to show that the ending of the marriage is not taken lightly.  The petition for divorce will let the court know that you have differences that cannot be resolved, and these differences have essentially broken the marriage already.  Further, it will have to state that you have tried to fix the problems in your marriage, and that it just will not work now or in the future.  There is also a period of living apart that is required by Illinois law, even if you are still technically in the same house, but not interacting as a married couple would.   Both spouses can agree in writing to waive this separation period.

2.  MYTH:  You can get more property in the divorce if your spouse was unfaithful.

Though it may not feel fair, a cheating spouse will not be penalized in an Illinois divorce when property is divided.  The decisions about who is responsible for the marital debts, and who gets what share of the assets, are made basically without any regard to whether you were cheated on by your spouse.  There would have to be more involved in the adultery for there to be any impact.  For example, if the cheater put the children at risk while in the act of cheating, this could likely be a factor in the custody determination.  Also, if money that belongs to your marriage has been spent on the “other” man or woman, then the cheater should have to account for it and pay it back.

3.  MYTH:  Fathers have less rights in divorce than mothers do.

It has become a popular notion that fathers start out at a disadvantage in divorce court, and do not have the same rights as their wives.  This idea can often create a fearful situation for fathers as they are going through divorce.  In fact, good, experienced divorce attorneys can and do properly represent clients of both genders with equal success.  And the fear that is created by pumping up the idea of bias against men in family law courts, only servers to drive up attorneys fees.

4.  MYTH:  A civil union can be ended by agreement of the couple.

Illinois’ civil union law basically says that all state laws that involve spouses, also apply to a couple that is in a civil union.  This would include all of the rights and obligations that are afforded to spouses in marriage.  Because of this, ending a civil union follows much of the process as ending a marriage.  A civil union is a legal relationship that is created, and the couple must go through the legal formalities of ending it as well.

5.  MYTH:  Alimony is awarded in all divorce cases.

Alimony, or spousal maintenance, is only awarded in those case where the financial situation of the spouses warrants it.  There is no automatic right for the party who is earning less to receive support from the party who is earning more.  In fact, the court will look at many factors relating to the each spouse’s financial picture, including:  not only what they presently earn, but what their future earning capacity is; what other assets each has; the time it would likely take for a spouse to be educated or trained for other employment possibilities; the standard of living of the couple during marriage; what each has contributed to or sacrificed for the other’s success; the length of the marriage; and other appropriate factors.

6.  MYTH:  You and your spouse can share an attorney.

It may sound like a good deal financially to have one attorney representing both of you, but beware of a deal that looks too good.  In fact, you cannot really “share” an attorney in the true sense of the word.  Even where you both seem to agree on everything, you still have individual interests, and an attorney cannot actually represent each of you at the same time.  In the end, any money that you think you have saved could only cost you later if you find that you are responsible for more debt than you thought, and/or do not have the right to the assets you thought you did.

7.  MYTH:  If you are paying support and you remarry, you can decrease the amount you are paying.

Usually there is no connection between the obligations of a new family, and the financial responsibility to the old family.  This may be a harsh reality, but a second marriage likely will result in the continued and ongoing obligation to two families.  A detailed examination of the parties’ financial picture takes place at the time of divorce, and the circumstances of spouse and/or children needing the support at that time does not change just because the circumstances changed for the one paying.  In fact, sometimes the financial picture of the supporting spouse can actually increase after remarriage, and this could cause an increase in support payments.

8.  MYTH:  You can make your husband’s paramour “pay” by suing for alienation of affection.

While alienation of affection exists in Illinois as a cause of action to hold your husband’s paramour responsible for breaking up your marriage, it is by no means an easy road to travel.  Illinois law has narrowed the reach of this type of case to try to eliminate revenge actions.  Instead, it should be used only where it can actually be shown that there was love and affection in the marriage that the paramour intentionally and willfully destroyed, and that you suffered actual damage as a result.  The stringent requirements for these lawsuits basically filter out the cases where one spouse is trying to punish or retaliate against the cheating husband’s paramour.

9.  MYTH:  If it was your property before your marriage it should be your property after divorce.

Sometimes one spouse has a bank account or investment from before the marriage that he or she wants to keep separate from the spouse.  Perhaps it was money from an inheritance, or some other personal money that the spouse does not want to contribute to the marriage, and wants it to be considered non-marital property in divorce.  If it is non-marital property, then it will not be divided.  This can be arranged, but it takes care.  The property is not automatically yours after marriage, just because it started out as yours before.  It has to be kept separate and apart from the marital assets, and not combined in any way.  If the money is used for marital debts, or other money was comingled with it, there is an argument for its character changing to marital property, and having it split between the couple.

10.  MYTH:  You are entitled to support because you have a “common law marriage.”

Illinois does not recognize common law marriages, though some states still do.  In those states, if you have been living together with your significant other for a certain number of years and you meet other specified criteria, then you are considered as though you are married.  Illinois requires a lawful marriage or civil union in order to have the rights and obligations of a marriage.  No matter how long you have been living together in Illinois as though you were husband and wife, your status does not change unless you make it legal and official.  There would be no right to a divorce then, and therefore no right to spousal support.  

2/17/12

Your Own Personal Money Can Turn into Marital Property

Thursday, February 9th, 2012

With couples heading to the alter later in life, after each has had an opportunity to bank some money, the issues of whose property is whose when they come together gets more complicated.  If two financially struggling individuals become engaged, they grow their marital assets together.  But if one or both has significant income to start, and buys a house with one spouse’s funds, it may be challenging to decide whose house that is if they divorce after living there for some time.

Generally, if you have your own funds that you keep completely separate, you do not necessarily have to share that money if you divorce.  But money that once began as clearly separate, single assets, can change character and become joint, marital property if you are not careful to protect its separateness.  When it comes to a house that was purchased before marriage, Illinois law will look at more than who paid for it, when deciding if the house is marital property in divorce and has to be divided, or if it stays with one spouse.

A recent Illinois case told the story of a husband who put considerable money into buying a home that he and his wife later lived in.  Though it became the family home, according to this husband, he had purchased it before he was married, and he argued that it was his alone and not marital property.  The court saw it differently.  The home purchase was considered to be for the purpose of the marriage, and not just a single person’s real estate buy.

In these situations, several factors are looked at to see if the total picture together looks like the home is for the marriage and should be divided.  One factor to be looked at is where the money came from to buy the house.   But this alone does not answer the question.  The courts will also look at the surrounding circumstances, including how soon before the marriage the home was bought, and whether there are facts that show the house was bought in order to be the marital, family home.

In this case, the wife was able to show that even though a large amount of the husband’s money was used for the purchase, it was done with the intent to be the home they lived in together with their children.  The wife had been involved in helping to make designs changes that would be better for the children.  The husband had only purchased the house three months before the marriage.  Also, though a substantial portion of his money had been used, some of the money involved was also marital money.  These factors taken together showed that the husband’s funds he put in were not to be kept separate as his own money any longer. The home was marital property.

Apparently the husband was aware of the potential for his money becoming marital property if he bought their home.  He testified that he had purchased the house prior to the marriage, to keep this from happening, and to safeguard his investment.  This clearly backfired on him, and the house ended up being subject to dividing between couple during their divorce.  Before putting all your hard-earned savings into a home with the expectation you would get it back if you divorce, you should check out your particular situation with an attorney so you are not regretting it later.

2/9/12

Do Your Due Diligence in a Divorce Settlement

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

Many couples going through a divorce enter into a marital settlement agreement to decide how to divide their property and other assets.  Rather than leaving it up to a judge to decide, the husband and wife attempt to reach an agreement, and then ask the judge to approve it.

When you are figuring out what each of you should get, it is critical to know what assets each of you has.  The process of finding out what your spouse owns, is called “due diligence.”  You are each supposed to take the time and necessary steps to find out for yourselves what assets your spouse has, and to disclose your own assets.

But in a recent Illinois case, a wife was told that she did not do enough to find out about her husband’s property, and as a result, she lost out on the chance to share in almost $2 million in assets she later found out about.  The court said that this was not a case where one spouse was hiding property from the other.  But instead, it was a case where one spouse should have used more formal, legal methods of discovering what her husband owned, and since she did not, she was out of luck.

The wife seemed to make a logical argument.  She had relied on her husband’s statements and disclosures in the divorce, and trusted that he was telling her everything.  She believed that relying on her husband’s statements in a divorce case was in fact “due diligence,” and she should be allowed now to have a chance at a share of the other property.

But the court made it clear that Illinois law does not allow one spouse to skip the formal steps of discovering the other’s assets, and call it “due diligence.”  Even in a situation where there is a marital settlement agreement, and each spouse is representing to the other that he or she disclosed everything, you still have your own duty to find things out for yourself.

If you do not, and you rely on the word of your soon-to-be ex, then you take a risk that you are not going to get everything you may be entitled to.  Because there is plenty of time to get all the facts yourself, and there are formal procedures for doing it, you cannot sit back and complain later.

This case shows another reason that having your own, experienced attorney representing you in your divorce can be important.  Sometimes, where there does not seem to be a lot of property to divide, there are no children involved, and the couple is getting along, they might be tempted to save money and go without an attorney.  Be sure if you decide to go this way, that you are certain that there is not much money involved, and you will not be in for a surprise later.

2/2/12

Don’t Delay Planning for College Costs—Even in Divorce

Tuesday, January 31st, 2012

A recent case decided by the Illinois Supreme Court is a cautionary tale as to why you should plan ahead for college expenses when you are going through a divorce.  More frequently these days, couples are planning early for the massive undertaking of putting their kids through college.  When a couple is divorcing, they should likewise plan for what’s to come, or risk not receiving support for these expenses.

In this case, a couple had “reserved” the issue of college expenses in their divorce judgment.  College seemed a long way off at the time, and so they put off the specifics of who would pay what, until some later time.  They did not even state that either would in fact be responsible for them—just that they reserved the issue until a later time.

This is not uncommon to do; after all, each party’s financial circumstances can change drastically from the time the children are young, until it’s time to send them off to college.  The problem here, was that the mom waited until one of her three children was finished with college, and one was currently enrolled, before she petitioned the court to have the dad share in the college costs.

Ordinarily the parties to a divorce may go into court later on and ask for some part of their arrangement to be modified if there has been a change in circumstances.  But the law does not allow the change to be made regarding past obligations.  So if you’re asking the court for more money to pay for expenses for the children, if you’re successful, you may get an increase in support going forward, not backward.

This mom wanted the college costs she had already paid to be shared by the dad.  She did not feel that she should be limited to only future costs, because she did not believe she was asking for a modification at all.  She was not asking for something to be changed, just to have the amounts set, and they had already agreed to determine college expenses later.

But in fact, the court said that their reservation of the college issue just gave the court permission to consider it later, but did not obligate either of them to pay any college costs.  Therefore, when the mom went to court later to ask for the dad to be obligated and pay, she was asking for a change in the circumstances, and so it could only be considered going forward.

So this mom was out the money she had already paid for her children’s tuition and room and board.  Had she acted earlier, before the bills began, it may have been different.

But had she acted even earlier, at the time of the divorce itself, and made a specific provision for college costs being shared by both of them, there may have been a different result.  In some cases, where there was agreement in the divorce that both would share in the responsibility for college expenses, then the later disagreement about amounts could be figured out.  Instead this mom and dad just agreed to agree in the future, so no one was really on the hook for it.

Paying for college long after a divorce can definitely be a confusing issue to resolve.  But one thing is clear.  College tuition is extremely expensive.  So it pays to be sure that if you are going through a divorce, you look all the way down that road, even if your children are very young at the time, and properly consider your options.

1/31/12


FindGreatLawyers.com