## Facts

- Cynthia Hassiepen (formerly Von Behren) and Kevin M. Von Behren divorced in 1984 after a seven-year marriage and had three children.
- The dissolution judgment awarded Cynthia custody and ordered Kevin to pay child support, later increased by agreement to $500 per month.
- After the divorce, Kevin remarried and operated a successful electrical contracting business with his new wife; Kevin performed the electrical work and his wife handled office functions and provided some start-up financing.
- In 1991, Cynthia petitioned to increase child support; Kevin petitioned to decrease it.
- Following hearings, the trial court increased Kevin’s child support obligation to $1,500 per month.
- In determining Kevin’s net income, the trial court treated the business as a partnership with Kevin’s new wife and attributed only half of the business income to Kevin.
- During the proceedings, Kevin produced 1992 tax returns late; Cynthia’s counsel sought additional time to review them, but the trial court denied a continuance.
- Cynthia also sought attorney’s fees; after a separate hearing, the trial court awarded only a small portion of the requested fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in calculating the payor’s “net income” for child support by attributing only half of the closely held business income to him based on a partnership characterization.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by relying on late-produced tax returns without allowing sufficient time for review and by denying a continuance.
3. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in awarding the custodial parent only a small portion of her attorney’s fees in post-dissolution litigation.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed and remanded the child support modification for recalculation of Kevin’s net income and the resulting support obligation.
- The court held the trial court erred by attributing only half of the business income to Kevin based on a partnership label rather than the economic reality of ownership, control, and income flow.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by using late-produced tax returns without giving Cynthia a fair opportunity to review them and by denying a continuance.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded the attorney-fee award for reconsideration in light of the parties’ relative financial abilities and the litigation circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- In setting or modifying child support, “net income” must reflect the payor’s actual economic capacity; courts may look past formal or informal business labels to the substantive flow of income, control, and public holding out of ownership.
- When income is derived from a closely held business, the support analysis may require scrutiny of business receipts and payments (including compensation drawn from the business) to prevent understatement of available income.
- Trial courts must provide basic procedural fairness in financial disclosure disputes; reliance on late-produced income documents may require additional time for meaningful review, and denial of a continuance can be an abuse of discretion when it prejudices the opposing party.
- In dissolution-related proceedings, attorney’s fees may be shifted based on the requesting party’s inability to pay and the other party’s ability to contribute; fee determinations must be consistent with the parties’ resources and the equities of the litigation.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed and remanded because the child support calculation did not adequately capture the payor’s true income from his closely held business, the proceedings were unfairly compressed by reliance on late-produced tax returns without sufficient review time, and the attorney-fee award did not adequately account for the parties’ relative financial positions.


In re Marriage of Hassiepen, 269 Ill. App. 3d 559, 646 N.E.2d 1348 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 1995)