## Facts

- Belinda A. Hightower and Larry M. Hightower married in 1984 and had one child, Christopher (born 1989).
- In 2001, Belinda petitioned for dissolution on the no-fault ground of irreconcilable differences.
- In 2002, Belinda filed a petition alleging Larry dissipated marital assets.
- In January 2003, the parties executed a written settlement resolving property distribution, waiving maintenance for both parties, granting Belinda sole custody, and “reserving” child support because Larry waived maintenance; it also provided support could be reviewed if Larry’s net income substantially exceeded $2,000 per month.
- The contemplated prove-up did not occur; Belinda later sought to amend her pleadings to pursue a fault-based ground (adultery).
- Larry moved to enforce the settlement and filed a counterpetition; he asserted condonation based on Belinda’s continued cohabitation and sexual relations after learning of adultery that occurred years earlier.
- The circuit court entered a dissolution judgment on irreconcilable differences, incorporated the settlement (including the child-support clause), and rejected Belinda’s postjudgment challenge.
- Belinda appealed, challenging the refusal to proceed on adultery, the child-support provision, and the dissipation ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by denying leave to amend the dissolution pleadings to assert adultery and by entering dissolution on irreconcilable differences.
2. Whether a judgment may incorporate a settlement term that “reserves” child support based on a spouse’s waiver of maintenance and conditions later review on an income threshold.
3. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting Belinda’s dissipation claim.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the dissolution judgment insofar as it granted dissolution on irreconcilable differences and rejected the dissipation claim.
- The appellate court reversed the child-support portion of the judgment and remanded for further proceedings on support consistent with Illinois law.
- On grounds, the court upheld the trial court’s reliance on condonation evidence and its case-management decisions regarding pleadings and the basis for dissolution.
- On dissipation, the court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s findings under the applicable standard of review.

## Legal Principles

- Condonation is an affirmative defense to fault-based dissolution grounds such as adultery and may be inferred from continued marital cohabitation and sexual relations after the injured spouse learns of the misconduct.
- A trial court may deny late-stage efforts to shift to fault-based grounds where the record supports condonation and the procedural posture supports proceeding on no-fault grounds.
- Child support is governed by statute and exists for the child’s benefit; parents cannot contractually trade away, limit, or condition a child’s right to adequate support through interspousal bargaining.
- A support provision that effectively links child support to a maintenance waiver, or that “reserves” support without a guideline-based determination and judicial findings, is subject to reversal and remand for a lawful support determination.
- Dissipation findings are reviewed deferentially; they will be affirmed where the trial court’s determination is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the no-fault dissolution and the rejection of dissipation, but it invalidated the settlement-based child-support arrangement because child support cannot be conditioned on a maintenance waiver or left “reserved” in a manner inconsistent with statutory requirements, and it remanded for a proper support determination.


In re Marriage of Hightower, 358 Ill. App. 3d 165, 830 N.E.2d 862 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2005)