Are my Reverse Stock Splits, Gifts and Loans considered income to determine my obligation to pay child support? Part 2 of 2

As we were discussing previously, we looked at how case law has determined whether Reverse Stock Splits, Gifts and Loans are to be considered part of your income to determine your obligation to pay child support.
We continue our review of In re Marriage of Anderson, 405 Ill.App.3d 1129, 938 N.E.2d 207, 344 Ill.Dec. 938 (3d Dist. 2010).
The second argument by the wife was that the trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to include gifts that her husband might receive from his family as income under 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3). The reviewing court stated “the trial court is required to include all income, regardless of its recurring nature, in calculating net income.” Einstein v. Nijim, 358 Ill.App.3d 263, 831 N.E.2d 50, 294 Ill.Dec. 527 (4th Dist. 2005). The relevant focus under §505(a)(3) is the noncustodial parent’s economic situation at the time the child-support calculations are made. If a parent receives payments that would qualify as “income” under the IMDMA, these payments may not be excluded on the basis that they might not be received in the future. See In re Marriage of Rogers, 213 Ill.2d 129, 820 N.E.2d 386, 391, 289 Ill.Dec. 610 (2004). In Rogers, the noncustodial father received yearly gifts and loans from his parents totaling more than $46,000, which he had never been required to repay. The court concluded that the annual gifts were income for purposes of determining child support because they represented a valuable benefit to the father that enhanced his wealth and facilitated his ability to support his son. Id.
The third argument made by the wife in Anderson, supra, was that the trial court improperly computed her husband’s net income by failing to include any future bonuses or commissions that he might earn. The reviewing court held “as with [her husband’s] gifts, the trial court’s refusal to include 28% of [her husband’s] bonuses in its calculation of net income was an abuse of discretion.” 938 N.E.2d at 214. In Einstein, supra, the court held that the bonus payment received, although possibly not recurring, should be included for support purposes.

You May Also Like

  • Download our Divorce Planning Guide today!
  • Download our Divorce Planning Guide today!

    Get the information you need to prepare for divorce with our free resource Guide to Planning for Your Divorce.

    click to download now!

What Our clients are saying

Excellent - I highly recommend Kimberly Anderson. She is knowledgeable, assertive, and experienced. What impressed me most about Kim is her dedication. I was able to reach her whenever there was a problem. She always responded immediately, proposed a solution, and put me at ease. The entire legal team at Anderson & Boback is superb.

Lisa March 29, 2018

  • Why Choose Anderson & Boback ?

  • ASLA Badge - Kimberly Anderson 2018
    BBB A+ Badge
    lawyers of distinction badge
    lawyers of distinction badge
    AVVO 10 Rating badge - generic
    Super Lawyers Generic badge

Schedule a Discreet Consultation Today!



  • firm overview Anderson & Boback

  • Anderson & Boback is a highly-respected, experienced Chicago family law firm, skilled in negotiation and litigation. When divorce and other family law issues make your life chaotic and uncertain, you want your case resolved as quickly and fairly as possible. Call Now 312-715-0870