{
  "id": 2569272,
  "name": "In re MARRIAGE OF LYDIA M. FRAZIER, n/k/a Lydia M. Stanton, Respondent-Appellant, and WILLIAM E. FRAZIER, Petitioner-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Marriage of Frazier",
  "decision_date": "1990-11-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 3-90-0210",
  "first_page": "621",
  "last_page": "625",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 3d 621"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "406 N.E.2d 907",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. App. 3d 468",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3197678
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/85/0468-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "459 N.E.2d 958",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 Ill. 2d 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3164374
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/99/0389-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "498 N.E.2d 246",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 Ill. App. 3d 581",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3603418
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/147/0581-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "528 N.E.2d 1008",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 Ill. App. 3d 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3517138
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/174/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N.E.2d 726",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 Ill. App. 2d 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2456095
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/39/0380-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "436 N.E.2d 561",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 Ill. App. 3d 831",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3033054
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/106/0831-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "548 N.E.2d 139",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 3d 685",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2509940
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/191/0685-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "491 N.E.2d 84",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. App. 3d 963",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3495413
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/141/0963-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 N.E.2d 493",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5426498
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/63/0128-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 463,
    "char_count": 7656,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.783,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1075834036706777e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5699075505946486
    },
    "sha256": "e102a5007ad2d283dc5be9bc55a72f04ec25bb3b83ed4a3e73b218c8254bd4f1",
    "simhash": "1:e9ee65452a05ad5c",
    "word_count": 1281
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:36.258665+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re MARRIAGE OF LYDIA M. FRAZIER, n/k/a Lydia M. Stanton, Respondent-Appellant, and WILLIAM E. FRAZIER, Petitioner-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HEIPLE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRespondent Lydia M. Frazier appeals from a judgment reducing petitioner William E. Frazier\u2019s child support obligation and ordering him to pay attorney fees.\nInitially, we note that William has not filed a brief in this case. However, since the record is simple and the claimed errors can be decided without an appellee\u2019s brief, we elect to address the merits of the case. First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 128, 345 N.E.2d 493.\nThe record shows that William and Lydia were divorced in 1984. Under the dissolution order, William was to maintain medical insurance for their three children and pay for any medical expenses not covered by the insurance. He was also ordered to pay $200 a week in child support for the three children until their emancipation.\nIn 1989, William filed petitions against Lydia seeking reimbursement for medical expenses he had paid on behalf of their son Michael and a reduction in child support. Lydia filed a petition requesting that William be held in contempt for failing to pay child support.\nAt a hearing on the petitions, Lydia testified that in February of 1989, William had unilaterally reduced his weekly child support payment to $133. Because of additional arrearages, by April 11, 1989, he owed her $1,870 in past-due support.\nLydia further testified that their son Michael had lost his heel and part of his leg muscle in a lawn mower accident. Several days after the accident, she informed William that she had filed a guardianship action concerning the incident. However, she did not send him notice of the suit or a copy of the petition. As a result of the suit, Michael received $72,234.54, which was to be held in trust until he reached the age of majority.\nWilliam testified that he had not received notice of his wife\u2019s suit regarding Michael\u2019s accident. Since his insurance had not covered all of Michael\u2019s medical expenses, he personally paid some of the bills. He presently had about $100 in savings. He also testified that on March 16, 1989, their 18-year-old son William Jr. was expelled from high school.\nAfter the hearing, the trial court made the following findings: (1) because of Lydia\u2019s failure to notify William about the lawsuit, she was to reimburse him for $3,000 he had expended on Michael\u2019s medical care; (2) because William owed Lydia $1,335 in past-due child support, her reimbursement obligation was lowered by that amount; (3) because of William Jr.\u2019s emancipation and Michael\u2019s settlement, William was entitled to a $100 weekly reduction in child support; (4) the child support reduction was retroactive to March 16, 1989; (5) because of the retroactivity of the modification, William had overpaid child support by $1,287; (6) William was to pay child support of $80 per week until he had been reimbursed for the medical expenses and overpaid support; (7) William was to pay Lydia\u2019s counsel $500 in attorney fees; and (8) William\u2019s counsel was to pay Lydia\u2019s counsel $660 in attorney fees.\nLydia first argues on appeal that the trial court erred in ordering her to reimburse William for his payment of Michael\u2019s medical expenses. She contends that the trial court improperly reasoned that because of her failure to give notice to William regarding the guardianship suit, she should pay William\u2019s out-of-pocket expenses.\nAlthough we have found no cases directly on point, there are two principles which guide our resolution of this issue. First, while section 11 \u2014 10.1 of the Probate Act of 1975 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110\u00bd, par. 11 \u2014 10.1) states that in a guardianship proceeding any relative named in the petition should be given notice of the action, the notice requirement is not mandatory. (See In re Estate of Neuf (1980), 85 Ill. App. 3d 468, 406 N.E.2d 907.) Second, since a parent is liable for a child\u2019s medical expenses, the cause of action to recover for such expenses lies in the parent, not the child. In re Estate of Hammond (1986), 141 Ill. App. 3d 963, 491 N.E.2d 84.\nApplying the above principles to the instant case, we find that Lydia\u2019s failure to notify William of the lawsuit did not entitle him to reimbursement from her. Instead, his cause of action lay against the tortfeasor who caused Michael\u2019s injuries. Accordingly, we reverse the finding that William should be reimbursed $3,000.\nLydia further argues that the court erred in reducing William\u2019s duty to pay child support by $100 per week. Noting that a modification of child support is warranted only where there is a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties (In re Marriage of Hardy (1989), 191 Ill. App. 3d 685, 548 N.E.2d 139), she contends that William failed to prove such a change.\nThe trial court\u2019s decision regarding the modification of child support will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Butler (1982), 106 Ill. App. 3d 831, 436 N.E.2d 561.) The financial resources of a child may be considered in determining the amount of child support. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 40, par. 505(2)(a).) Moreover, where a child\u2019s parents are unable to provide for his needs, his estate may be invaded to pay for his necessities. In re Estate of Weisskopf (1963), 39 Ill. App. 2d 380, 188 N.E.2d 726.\nThe record shows that Michael\u2019s estate far exceeded William\u2019s financial resources. Additionally, the parties\u2019 18-year-old son was emancipated on March 16, 1989. Based on these facts, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing William\u2019s support obligation to $100 a week.\nLydia further argues that the court erred in retroactively applying the reduction in child support to March 16, 1989.\nIt is well settled that past-due child support payments constitute a vested and unmodifiable right. (In re Estate of Ierulli (1988), 174 Ill. App. 3d 134, 528 N.E.2d 1008.) Support payments may be modified only as to installments accruing after the party moving for modification has given due notice. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 40, par. 510(a).) Since William gave notice of his petition for modification on May 1, 1989, he was only entitled to a reduction of support retroactive to that date. Accordingly, we reduce his credit by $212.\nLydia lastly argues that the court erred in ordering William\u2019s counsel to pay her counsel only $660 in attorney fees. She contends that her counsel was entitled to $3,271.50, and that the court lacked authority to make a partial award.\nThe instant record indicates that the parties disputed the proper amount of fees and that a hearing was held on the matter. Although Lydia, as the appellant in this appeal, had the burden of providing a complete record (Davis v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1986), 147 Ill. App. 3d 581, 498 N.E.2d 246), she failed to include a transcript of the hearing. In the absence of an adequate record, it is presumed that the trial court\u2019s judgment conformed with the law and had a sufficient basis in fact. (Foutch v. O\u2019Bryant (1984), 99 Ill. 2d 389, 459 N.E.2d 958.) We therefore affirm the award of attorney fees.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.\nAffirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.\nGORMAN and STOUDER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HEIPLE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy A. Sabuco, of Rudman & Sabuco, of Joliet, and Philip J. Vacco, of Wilson & Vacco, of Hinsdale, for appellant.",
      "No brief filed for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re MARRIAGE OF LYDIA M. FRAZIER, n/k/a Lydia M. Stanton, Respondent-Appellant, and WILLIAM E. FRAZIER, Petitioner-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3-90-0210\nOpinion filed November 30, 1990.\nRoy A. Sabuco, of Rudman & Sabuco, of Joliet, and Philip J. Vacco, of Wilson & Vacco, of Hinsdale, for appellant.\nNo brief filed for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0621-01",
  "first_page_order": 643,
  "last_page_order": 647
}