Motion for Modification / Rehearing Take 1 (Doc 22)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF XXXXX XXXX, 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. Pursuant to Supreme Court authority in Catlett V Novak (1987) 116 ILL2d 53 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. 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. (Note: I just love how someone doesn't want to pay half for their child. It just makes me boil.) 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. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.