## Facts

- A 1965 dissolution decree awarded Ethel Finley custody of four minor children and ordered Bill Finley to pay $30 per week “for the use, support and maintenance” of the children, continuing “until further order of this Court.”
- Bill initially paid $30 weekly, but as each child became emancipated (military service, marriage, or reaching age 18), he reduced payments pro rata to $22.50, then $15, then $7.50.
- Bill made these reductions without obtaining a court order modifying the support obligation.
- In 1977, after three children were emancipated, Ethel petitioned for judgment for child-support arrearages and interest based on the original $30 weekly order.

## Issues

1. Whether a payor may unilaterally reduce a lump-sum child-support order pro rata as each child is emancipated without a modifying court order.
2. Whether § 510(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act terminates or retroactively eliminates accrued support obligations under a pre-Act decree.
3. Whether laches or equitable estoppel bars recovery of child-support arrearages when the obligee delayed enforcement and accepted reduced payments.
4. Whether unpaid child-support installments bear interest, and whether equitable considerations may affect an interest award.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court held that a lump-sum child-support obligation may not be reduced unilaterally; modification requires leave of court.
- The court construed § 510(c) to terminate the duty to pay support prospectively upon emancipation events, but not to extinguish installments that accrued while the decree remained in effect and unmodified.
- The court rejected laches and equitable estoppel as complete bars to recovery of arrearages based solely on delay or silence.
- The court recognized that accrued installments are treated as money judgments and may bear interest, while permitting limited equitable consideration in shaping the arrearage and interest award.
- The court affirmed and reversed portions of the lower-court rulings and remanded for recalculation consistent with its statutory and equitable guidance.

## Legal Principles

- A child-support obligor may not alter a court-ordered support amount by self-help; a valid change requires a modifying court order.
- When a decree sets a single collective weekly amount for multiple children “until further order,” emancipation of one child does not automatically reduce the ordered amount absent modification.
- Statutory termination provisions governing emancipation apply to future obligations and do not retroactively cancel vested rights to installments already due under an existing decree.
- Each unpaid child-support installment becomes a judgment when due; arrearages are generally not subject to retroactive modification and may accrue interest.
- Equitable doctrines such as laches and estoppel rarely bar arrearages absent a strong showing of prejudice or affirmative conduct, though equity may bear on the remedy (including interest) on remand.

## Conclusion

The court required judicial modification for any reduction of a lump-sum child-support order, held emancipation statutes do not erase accrued arrears under an unmodified decree, and confirmed that past-due installments function as judgments that may accrue interest subject to limited equitable adjustment.


Finley v. Finley, 81 Ill. 2d 317, 410 N.E.2d 12 (Ill. 1980)