​​Motion for Modification / Rehearing Take ​2  (Doc 22)

Motion for Modification / Rehearing (Doc 22)
Request to Admit Facts & Genuineness of Documents (Doc 21)
Motion to Extend the Protective Order (Doc 20)
Reading below, you'll see how Marty and Mr. X try to force me to mediation.  Funny how months and months after trying, when they saw a petition that had sticking power, they resorted to trying to push it out via mediation.  However, if you recall, I had sent an email requesting mediation (for custody) in April by total fluke.  Their non-responsiveness, in the Judge's own words, "Forced [me] to litigate."
Additionally, Marty didn't address the Concealed Income Count.  Unfortunately, the Judge gave him more time, even though Marty totally missed his 28-day response window.  

Judgement for the Dissolution of Marriage

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF XXXXX XXXX COUNTY, XXXXX XXXX COUNTY DEPARTMENT – DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

MOTION FOR MODIFICATION/REHEARING

XXXXX XXXX by attorney XXXXX XXXX moves the court to amend and modify its memorandum opinion ordered entered on June 16, 2015.  In support of this motion XXXXX XXXX, states as follows;

1. On June 16, 2015, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion Order.  See copy of order, attached as Exhibit A.

2. Supreme Court Rule 304(a) provides in pertinent part, "any judgment that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or rights of the parties is not enforceable or appealable and is subject to revision at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claimed, rights and liabilities of all the parties.  The order entered by the Court on June 16, 2015 is interlocutory in nature because it contemplated a future determination as to the amount of support to be assessed against XXXXX XXXX as well as the nature and amount of funds to be contributed by XXXXX XXXX towards his son's education and extracurricular activities.  Pursuant to Supreme Court authority in Catlett V Novak (1987) 116 ILL2d 63 and Towns V Yellow Cab Company (1978) 73 ILL 2d 113, this court has the power and authority to review, modify and vacate any interlocutory order before final judgment.

3. In Towns, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the pretrial judge had the authority to consider the defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment after the motion had been considered and denied by the motion judge.  The Supreme Court held that the denial of a motion for summary judgment was interlocutory in nature and could be modified or vacated at any time citing Leopold V Levin (1970) 45 ILL2d. 434.

4. In Catlett, supra at 68, the Supreme Court held that "The trial court's order denying Novak's and ICG's motion to dismiss did not terminate the litigation.  It did not determine the controversy on the merits but was an interlocutory order that could be modified or vacated."

5. XXXXX XXXX believes that this Court erred when it ordered him contribute 50% toward his son's private education at XXXXX XXXX School and an additional 50% toward his son's extracurricular activities.   On July 15, 2014, this Court denied XXXXX XXXX's motion filed on July 1, 2014, which requested that those matters be submitted to mediation pursuant to stated provisions of the Joint Parenting Agreement, which mandated mediation.  The Court denied the motion when the issues concerning education, medical and extracurricular activities were still in the pleading stage.  The Court further erred when it refused to enforce the stated provisions of the Joint Parenting Agreement which required that the parties jointly discuss and jointly determine major decisions concerning XXXXX XXXX, which decisions include medical, educational and extracurricular activities when the evidence was clear that XXXXX XXXX made literally all of the decisions concerning the welfare of XXXXX XXXX without seeking input from XXXXX XXXX as mandated by the Joint Parenting Agreement.  (Note:  I cannot stress enough that you be explicit in the JPA as to what and how to handle disagreements.)  The evidence adduced at trial was uncontroverted that XXXXX XXXX objected to enrollment of XXXXX XXXX at XXXXX XXXX School because of its cost when XXXXX XXXX unilaterally withdrew XXXXX XXXX from another less expensive private school XXXXX XXXX because she was under the mistaken impression that the school was going to close.  On this matter of education, XXXXX XXXX was required to submit the issue to arbitration prior to filing her pleadings in the circuit court as per her agreement with XXXXX XXXX in the Joint Parenting Agreement.  XXXXX XXXX disagrees with the court's finding that he was an absent parent.  Any absence was caused entirely by XXXXX XXXX's stringent requirements that visitation transfers take place at a police station, a condition not mandated by the Joint Parenting Agreement and not reasonable or necessary in this case.  In any event, XXXXX XXXX's rights of consultation and decision-making concerning the welfare of his son pursuant to the Joint Parenting Agreement are not dependent on weekly visitations with his son.

6.  This court erred when it concluded that XXXXX XXXX had shown through competent and credible testimony that XXXXX XXXX is in need of more support from XXXXX XXXX due to ongoing medical conditions.  The only competent and credible testimony, which supported the court’s conclusion, came from the testimony of XXXXX XXXX herself who stands to gain the most from and increased award of support.  The Court failed to consider voluminous medical records, which acknowledged that XXXXX XXXX suffers from allergies and asthma both of which are controlled through a normal diet as long as he avoids a few food items.  The Court failed to consider that no physician ever prescribed camel milk or any special dietary supplement for XXXXX XXXX. The court failed to consider that XXXXX XXXX's credibility as a witness suffered when she suggested to physicians that XXXXX XXXX commence worm therapy even though the doctors had warned against it.  The Court also failed to consider the fact the medical records disclosed that XXXXX XXXX suffered from head lice and other illnesses due to lack of proper bathing, condition which occurred while XXXXX XXXX was in sole custody of XXXXX XXXX.  This Court failed to consider that XXXXX XXXX's credibility further suffered when she publicly boasted to others that head lice can be a good, even healthful, condition.

7. The Court erred when it made elevated findings concerning XXXXX XXXX's income when the weight of evidence showed otherwise.  While the Court noted that XXXXX XXXX earned $80,000 ten years ago, it chose to ignore the findings of the trial court and agreement of the parties at the time of the divorce which ordered XXXXX XXXX to pay child support in the sum of $500 per month based on earnings estimated at $30,000 per year.  The Court erred when it concluded that XXXXX XXXX sold a boat to his friend when there was no testimony from any source that any sum was paid to obtain a bill of sale for the boat.  The Court erred when it found that the income derived from XXXXX XXXX was attributable to XXXXX XXXX in the face of uncontroverted evidence that XXXXX XXXX was the owner of the business, had the business registered under her name with the Internal Revenue Service and paid taxes on the income earned.

8. The Court erred when it accused XXXXX XXXX and XXXXX XXXX of deceit when objections were made to written discovery and issued subpoenas.  There were not discovery issues pending at the time of trial and the court imposed no sanctions against any party for violations of the rules of discovery.  Our Supreme Court Rules 213 and 214 permit objection to requests for discovery.  Motions to quash subpoenas are allowed pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1101.  The court erred when it accused XXXXX XXXX and XXXXX XXXX of deceit when they made good faith objections to discovery, which are permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure and the Supreme Court Rules.  The Court further erred when it accused XXXXX XXXX and XXXXX XXXX of deceit when the evidence showed that recently filed tax returns for 2013 for XXXXX XXXX were produced voluntarily by XXXXX XXXX to the attorney XXXXX XXXX prior to her testimony at trial.

As a result of the voluminous errors made by the Court in the conduct of this trial, XXXXX XXXX requests that this Court grant a rehearing or in the alternative, amend or modify its Memorandum Opinion Order to comply with the weight of the evidence adduced at trial.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF XXXXXXXXXXX COUNTY, XXXXXXXXX COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

AMENDED PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT

NOW COMES Respondent, XXXXXXXXX, Pro Se, and pursuant to Sections 505 and 510 of the  XXXXXXXXX Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act ("IMDMA") 750ILCS 5/505 and 5/510, petitions this Honorable Court for modification of the Petitioner's, XXXXXXXXX, child support obligation established on April 8, 2014. In support of her Petition, XXXXXXXXX states as follows:
XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX were married on February 3, 2005 and their marriage was dissolved on March 3, 2009.  A copy of the Judgment of Dissolution is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
One child was born of the marriage, namely XXXXXXXXX, born 2005.
The Court expressly retained jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing the Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage.
On November 1, 2013, this Court entered a needs based child support order for the minor child in the amount of $3,202.00 per month.
On April 8, 2014, this Court vacated the November 1, 2013 child support order and entered a new order in the amount of $764.00 per month.  A copy of the April 8, 2014 order is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
On April 8, 2014, this Court also granted XXXXXXXXX leave to file an Amended Petition for Modification of Child Support.
Since the date of the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage there have been substantial changes in circumstances and the child's expenses have increased.  At the time of the Judgment, the child was 4, and is now 8 and attending private school, participating in extracurricular activities, and partaking in a unique dietary regime due to severe allergies.  All of these issues present significant expenses that are incurred in the best interests of the minor child.
COUNT I:  EDUCATION EXPENSES
XXXXXXXXX realleges and reaffirms the allegations contained in paragraphs one through seven of this Petition as if fully set forth herein.
At the time of the Judgment for Dissolution, the minor child was in the process of being enrolled in XXXXXXXXX School for pre-Kindergarten. This school presented an additional cost of over $3,000 per year.
Although pursuant to the Joint Parenting Agreement, XXXXXXXXX never agreed to this enrollment decision, he did acquiesce to the enrollment.  Further, XXXXXXXXX even dropped the minor child off at the first day for school.
XXXXXXXXX never contributed to the costs of XXXXXXXXX although tacitly agreeing to the enrollment.
On or about the winder of 2012/2013, XXXXXXXXX learned that XXXXXXXXX would be closing and would have to find a new school for the minor child.  After diligently searching for schools, XXXXXXXXX found a match for the minor child at the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX School.
XXXXXXXXX contacted XXXXXXXXX about the minor child's enrollment on or about January/February 2013.  Originally, XXXXXXXXX responded affirmatively to the decision, but later reneged after becoming aware that he would have to contribute financially to the education of the minor child.
After learning about XXXXXXXX failure to contribute, XXXXXXXXX contacted XXXXXXXXX parents to bear some of the financial burden that XXXXXXXXX was unwilling to shoulder.  XXXXXXXXX parents assisted with the 2013/2014 tuition with a check for XXXXX to the school.
The XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX School tuition stands at approximately XXXXX per year.  XXXXXXXXX should contribute to the expenses for schooling that present a substantial change in circumstances since the March 2009 Judgment.
WHEREFORE, Respondent XXXXXXXXX respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
Award Respondent additional support for the minor child pursuant to the 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(2.5) to cover at least half of the education costs;
Grant such other further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable under the facts and circumstances of this case.
COUNT II:  EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES
XXXXXXXXX realleges and reaffirms the allegations contained in paragraph one through sixteen of this Petition as if fully set forth herein.
The minor child is currently enrolled in Kung Fu, a program he thoroughly enjoys, at a cost of $150.00 per month.
The minor child is also enrolled in classical guitar at a cost of $900.00 per year. XXXXXXXXX is aware of this expense and has even enjoyed one of the minor child's concerts, while contributing nothing to the lessons.
The minor child is enrolled in swimming classes with a cost of $900.00 per year. For the coming months, the minor child is enrolled in Kung Fu Camp, at $100 per week; Music Camp, at $200 per week; and math tutoring at $285.00 per month.  All of the activities are not only necessary for XXXXXXXXX to maintain employment, but they are in the best interests of the minor child by providing him great experiences and positive role models.
WHEREFORE, Respondent, XXXXXXXXX respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
Award Respondent additional support for the minor child pursuant to the 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(2.5) to cover at least half of the education costs;
Grant such other further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable under the facts and circumstances of this case.
COUNT III:  DIETARY AND HEALTH NEEDS
XXXXXXXXX realleges and reaffirms the allegations contained in paragraph one through twenty-two of this Petition as if fully set forth herein.
The Joint Parenting Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit C, made the following finding under paragraph 6: "The parties' acknowledge that [the minor child] presently suffers from severe, life threatening food allergies..."  Following this finding, XXXXXXXXX has struggled to find a proper regimen of food, dietary supplements, and other aids to help the minor child.  
For example the minor child requires camel milk for protein and assistance with weight gain, which costs up to $600 per month.  
Aside from allergies, the minor child suffers from asthma, which imposes additional costs for treatment and management.
XXXXXXXXX has not met the minor child's needs with any additional support for him.  
XXXXXXXXX has been left as solely responsible for these costs as well as assisting the minor child with doctor's visits and other visits related to health care for the minor child.
WHEREFORE, Respondent, XXXXXXXXX respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
Award Respondent additional support for the minor child pursuant to the 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(2.5) to cover at least half of the dietary and health costs;
Require the XXXXXXXXX to maintain health insurance for the minor child if available through his employment;
Grant such other further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable under the facts and circumstances of this case.
COUNT IV:  CONCEALED INCOME
XXXXXXXXX realleges and reaffirms the allegations contained in paragraph one through twenty-eight of this Petition as if fully set forth herein.
750ILCS 505(a)(4) states:
"If the net income [for child support] cannot be determined because of default or any other reason, the court shall order support in an amount considered reasonable in a particular case..." (brackets and emphasis added)
At the time of the marriage, XXXXXXXXX owned and operated a film equipment rental company doing business as XXXXXXXXX.  XXXXXXXXX earned up to $1800 per day for the labor and equipment.
Following the dissolution of the marriage, XXXXXXXXX dissolved XXXXXXXXX and bankrupted his trucking business.  Between these two businesses, XXXXXXXXX was able to provide a very comfortable living for the parties and the minor child as his income was generally above $100,000 per year.  However, and following a recent 13.3.1 Financial Disclosure Form, XXXXXXXXX now reports an income of less than half that amount.
Even with a substantially lower reported income, XXXXXXXXX is still able to live a very comfortable life, residing in a 1600 square foot lake house, owning a 21-foot speedboat and other luxuries.
In the meantime, and suspiciously enough, XXXXXXXXX new girlfriend, XXXXXXXXX, opened up a film equipment rental business, XXXXXXXXX following the dissolution of XXXXXXXXX own business.  Further, XXXXXXXXX experience in the field of film equipment is extremely limited, if she possess any at all.
Upon information and belief, XXXXXXXXX is using XXXXXXXXX as a vehicle to conceal income for the purposes of evading child support.  This information has caused XXXXXXXXX to propound additional discovery on businesses and individuals who have done business with XXXXXXXXX  as XXXXXXXXX's cellphone number is listed on XXXXXXXXX invoices and various individuals recall XXXXXXXXX's attendance on work days on which XXXXXXXXX billed for performing services.
In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX dissolution of business from which he earned a substantial income is voluntary underemployment and should not provide him with a way of dodging his child support obligation.
In October of 2013, XXXXXXXXX informed XXXXXXXXX of her going to court to modify child support. XXXXXXXXX responded, "Was thinking 'bout everything can't get to court on the day you requested, however I am willing to adjust the amount based on my current amount."  He then sent a check to the child support services department for $1000.  In the 30 days leading up to that check he paid a total of $1638.85.
When called upon XXXXXXXXX was able to make a substantial contribution to the support of the minor child, which based upon the official amounts of income he officially shows, would be a tremendous financial burden.
HEREFORE, Respondent, XXXXXXXXX respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
Allow XXXXXXXXX to propound further discovery on XXXXXXXXX and other businesses or people who have done business with XXXXXXXXX;
Impute additional income on the Respondent pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(4);
Award a child support amount pursuant to the factors listed in 750 ILCS 5/505 with an upward deviation from guidelines;
Grant such other further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable under the facts and circumstances of this case.