{
  "id": 3739739,
  "name": "In re MARRIAGE OF JOAN ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellee, and MARK ROGERS, Respondent-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Marriage of Rogers",
  "decision_date": "2003-12-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 1-02-3785",
  "first_page": "77",
  "last_page": "81",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "345 Ill. App. 3d 77"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "789 N.E.2d 366",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 Ill. App. 3d 720",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        25334
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "730"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/338/0720-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 F.2d 829",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        165365
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/317/0829-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "679 N.E.2d 110",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Davis"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 Ill. App. 3d 846",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        520988
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "852",
          "parenthetical": "Davis"
        },
        {
          "page": "852"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/287/0846-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "675 N.E.2d 985",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 Ill. App. 3d 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1544417
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "218"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/286/0213-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "721 N.E.2d 815",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 Ill. App. 3d 1063",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        261417
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1067"
        },
        {
          "page": "1067"
        },
        {
          "page": "1067"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/308/1063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "568 N.E.2d 948",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Harmon"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 3d 92",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2533905
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Harmon"
        },
        {
          "page": "95-96"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/210/0092-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "664 N.E.2d 88",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Gay"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 Ill. App. 3d 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        75316
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "145",
          "parenthetical": "Gay"
        },
        {
          "page": "147"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/279/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "459 N.E.2d 958",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 Ill. 2d 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3164374
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "391-92"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/99/0389-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 418,
    "char_count": 6412,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.69,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.600349439118536e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4035231397660636
    },
    "sha256": "fd543f9a5443696bbc42f474f622777495bf203d8dd77457d1d070989ed72a51",
    "simhash": "1:83fc7d55ea0fa6d0",
    "word_count": 1057
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:04.128176+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "GREIMAN and THEIS, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In re MARRIAGE OF JOAN ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellee, and MARK ROGERS, Respondent-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HARTMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court;\nRespondent, Mark Rogers (Mark), appeals from the circuit court\u2019s judgment in a postdissolution of marriage proceeding, wherein his monthly child support payment was increased from $250 to $1,000 per month. The court found Mark \u201creceives $46,000 per year in gifts and loans from his parents and earns $15,000 per year and has a gross income of $61,000 for which [he] has little or no tax liability.\u201d No report of proceedings or reference to any record documentation is set forth in explanation or support of these conclusions.\nOn appeal, Mark questions only whether the circuit court erred in failing to deduct $46,000 in \u201cgifts and loans\u201d from his annual income in calculating child support. He maintains that this court must determine whether the term \u201cnet income,\u201d as employed in the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 2000)) (Act), includes \u201cgifts and loans.\u201d Petitioner, Joan Rogers (Joan), pro se, responds that Mark \u201csimply attempted to characterize the largest portion of his annual income as gifts and loans\u201d to lessen his child support obligation. Joan asserts that the court\u2019s characterization of the funds as \u201cgifts and loans\u201d is inaccurate.\nThis case involves questions of fact and law. Therefore, it must first be determined if the circuit court improperly characterized the money as it did. It is possible that the court\u2019s factual determinations were based on the testimonial evidence presented or documentary evidence, or perhaps, both; however, the record is barren of any evidence that might serve either to support or to disturb the court\u2019s findings. This court will not speculate in ascertaining the form in which the money was given, whether it was given regularly, or whether it will be received or terminated in the future. In the absence of a sufficiently complete record on appeal, it will be presumed that the court\u2019s order had a sufficient factual basis. Foutch v. O\u2019Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92, 459 N.E.2d 958 (1984). Where, as here, the record does not support an alternate finding, the circuit court cannot be said to have abused its discretion in characterizing $46,000 of Mark\u2019s income as gifts and loans.\nThe remaining issue is whether the court erred in prohibiting Mark from deducting gifts and loans from his gross income, a question of law and reviewed de novo. Gay v. Dunlap, 279 Ill. App. 3d 140, 145, 664 N.E.2d 88 (1996) (Gay). Regarding gifts, Mark relies exclusively on In re Marriage of Harmon, 210 Ill. App. 3d 92, 568 N.E.2d 948 (1991) (Harmon), where the court held a $10,000 annual gift from respondent\u2019s mother to be deductible from gross income. This holding was based on the court\u2019s uncertainty that the gift would be received in the future. Harmon, 210 Ill. App. 3d at 95-96. Absent this contingency, the exclusion of gifts from net income lacks clear support in Act.\nUnder the Act, child support awards are a direct function of net income, the calculation of which is a straightforward, mechanical process, explicitly set forth in section 505(a)(3) of the Act (In re Mar riage of Boland, 308 Ill. App. 3d 1063, 1067, 721 N.E.2d 815 (1999)) (Boland), where \u201cnet income\u201d is to be considered as the total of \u201call income from all sources,\u201d minus delineated deductions. See 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3) (West 2000). There is a rebuttable presumption that all income, unless specifically excluded, is income for child support purposes. Department of Public Aid ex rel. Jennings v. White, 286 Ill. App. 3d 213, 218, 675 N.E.2d 985 (1997). Although gifts may be deducted from income for purposes of taxation, the circuit court must use the Act\u2019s definition of \u201cnet income,\u201d not a definition from the Internal Revenue Code. Boland, 308 Ill. App. 3d at 1067; In re Marriage of Davis, 287 Ill. App. 3d 846, 852, 679 N.E.2d 110 (1997) (Davis).\nSubsection 505(a)(3)(h) of the Act makes deductible \u201creasonable expenditures for the benefit of the child and the other parent, exclusive of gifts.\u201d The phrase, \u201cexclusive of gifts,\u201d references solely the clause, \u201creasonable expenditures for the benefit of the child and other parent.\u201d The word \u201cgifts\u201d refers to those given to the child or custodial parent, and are nondeductible. The Act does not, however, permit the deduction of gifts received as unearned income. This construction is consistent with the axiom that where the language of a statute is clear, the court must give it effect. Gay, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 147.\nTurning to whether loans may be deducted under the Act, the statute allows for the deduction of \u201c[expenditures for repayment of debts that represent reasonable and necessary expenses for the production of income.\u201d Respondent\u2019s reliance upon Consolidated-Hammer Dry Plate & Film Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 317 F.2d 829 (7th Cir. 1963), for the assertion that the proceeds of a loan do not constitute taxable income is without merit. The Act\u2019s definition of \u201cnet income\u201d for child support purposes must be applied; not the tax code. Boland, 308 Ill. App. 3d at 1067; Davis, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 852. Respondent provides no authority for his contention that loans may be excluded from child support; indeed, his position directly contradicts the language of the Act, which provides only for the deduction of \u201cexpenditures for repayment of debt,\u201d not the proceeds. The record presented in this appeal is devoid of any evidence relating to \u201cexpenditures for repayment of debt.\u201d\nAccordingly, loans and gifts are to be considered in calculating child support payments. The circuit court did not commit error by not deducting Mark\u2019s unearned annual income.\nFor the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nGREIMAN and THEIS, JJ., concur.\nIn a recent case, In re Marriage of Bowlby, 338 Ill. App. 3d 720, 730, 789 N.E.2d 366 (2003), the court, citing Harmon, seemingly disregarded the Act\u2019s language in noting respondent \u201cfails to cite authority to support the proposition that gifts are to be considered when a court determines net income for child support purposes.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HARTMAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul J. Bargiel, EC., of Chicago (Paul J. Bargiel, of counsel), for appell\u00e1nt.",
      "Joan Gordinier Rogers, of Chicago, appellee pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re MARRIAGE OF JOAN ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellee, and MARK ROGERS, Respondent-Appellant.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 1-02-3785\nOpinion filed December 31, 2003.\nPaul J. Bargiel, EC., of Chicago (Paul J. Bargiel, of counsel), for appell\u00e1nt.\nJoan Gordinier Rogers, of Chicago, appellee pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0077-01",
  "first_page_order": 97,
  "last_page_order": 101
}