Divorce Lawyers Indianapolis

 Where the custody of a minor child is in dispute between a mother and father, a hearing should be had, whereby evidence on the question is adduced after the parties have had the opportunity to present testimony and each party as well as other witnesses is available for cross-examination.  Henrikson v. Henrikson
 A custody determination by a trial court is subject to an appeal by a reviewing court, and as the result of failing to have a separate hearing pertaining to custody, the appeals court is placed in the position of being unable to consider the evidence and examine the factors which led to the trial court’s decision.  Henrikson v. Henrikson
 Evidence of father’s unfitness was sufficient to require a hearing on the issue of child custody.  Szewczyk v. Szewczyk

 Where the trial court entered a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction against respondent from proceeding with any matrimonial action in any other jurisdiction and awarding temporary custody of the child, who was still in West Germany, to the petitioner, respondent’s appeal would be dismissed without further consideration of the issues raised on appeal unless, within 30 days after the date of filing the court opinion, the respondent filed an additional record showing she, in her own proper person, appeared in the trial court and turned over custody of the minor child to the petitioner.  In re Marks

___Credit
 Since the right to receive a past-due alimony payment and the right to be relieved of paying taxes on a marital home were similar in that both were economic benefits, a supplemental judgment for divorce was modified to give the plaintiff full credit for having paid the taxes when the marital home was sold.  Laing v. Laing
___Fraud or Coercion
 Generally, provisions as to property dispositions may not be modified, however, a settlement agreement will be set aside and vacated if procured by fraud, coercion, or if contrary to any rule of law, public policy, or morals.  In re Lipkin
 A decree disposing of property upon divorce, based upon a separation agreement procured by fraud or coercion, may be modified via a motion under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 if the injured party acts with reasonable diligence.  In re Beck

Womens Divorce Lawyers

 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding decedent’s children one-third of $300,000 life insurance policy; even though under the terms of the dissolution judgment the decedent was to maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of his children, at the time of the judgment decedent had two policies in the total amount of $55,000.  Downey v. Downey

Womens Divorce Lawyers

 A substantial change in circumstances was shown, and the case reversed and remanded with directions to enter an order to abate maintenance retroactive to filing of the petition to modify.  In re Johnson
 Father’s obligation to pay a portion of one son’s college expenses had ended and thus he no longer had any financial obligation to this son; this change in circumstances was sufficient to justify the trial court’s order providing for a pro rata reduction in the life insurance obligation.  In re Tieman
 Generally, evidence that a child has attained the age of majority constitutes a substantial change in circumstances which necessitates the modification of child support unless; (1) the parties agree on a different terminating event; (2) the court orders support payments to continue based on the non-minor child’s physical or mental disability or when educational expenses are sought; or (3) the child becomes emancipated at an earlier age.  
 
 Where the husband’s business entered bankruptcy and there was no evidence that he voluntarily chose to have his business fail, there was a substantial change in his circumstances that would warrant a reduction or modification of his support obligations.  In re Lavelle
 Inheritances received by wife constituted a substantial change in her circumstances, and the court failed to make any determination of the amount of income which could be generated there from, and some approximation of the income-producing ability of the inheritances was required, explicit findings by the trial court are not required so long as a sufficiently detailed basis exists in the record to support a modification of the award.  In re Zeman
 The trial court appropriately balanced the needs of the child with the significant increase in petitioner’s income and did not abuse its discretion in awarding child support where it determined that the child’s expenses increased after he entered high school, and that the father’s income grew substantially after winning the lottery.  In re Boyden
 Where three of the four children had attained the age of majority, the remaining minor child was older and expenses of her maintenance had increased, a substantial change of circumstances occurred thereby justifying a modification of child support payments.  In re Wettstein
 Where at the time of the divorce, defendant’s gross income was approximately $12,800 and then became around $21,000, when the total increase was about 64% and where the increased needs of the child could be presumed from the fact that he had grown older and the cost of living had risen the trial court was correct in finding a substantial change of circumstances had occurred.  Fedun v. Kuczek
 If the parties cannot agree upon child support after cessation of the unallocated support provided in the decree, such cessation would present a substantial change in circumstances which would permit modification of the judgment for dissolution upon petition of a party and support for the minor child will then be determined by the court.  In re Rapacz
 There was a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the previous judgment because the children’s needs increased and the defendant’s ability to support his children had increased significantly.  In re Roth
 Plaintiff’s real needs had increased and also the defendant’s real income and ability to pay where defendant’s annual income had risen by more than $12,000, and he had gained interest in an inheritance and a residential building and such a substantial change in circumstances warranted modification.  In re Helfrich

Interrogatories are also essential for the identification of trial and expert witnesses.  Recent changes in the Supreme Court Rules provide for complete disclosure of trial witnesses upon written interrogatories and substitute interrogatory answers relating to expert witnesses for the now-abolished Supreme Court Rule 220 disclosure of expert witnesses.  See Supreme Court Rules 213, 218.

Link

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!