2-Hour Personal Financial Management Instructional Course
1 After Filing

Satisfy Your Credit Counseling Requirement Before Filing Bankruptcy

1 Before Filing

A court Order [or judgment*] is a written pronouncement by a Court of its decision on issues regarding the rights of a party to a lawsuit and serves several purposes, A “judgment” is the official and authentic decision of a court of justice upon the respective rights and claims of the parties to an action or suit therein litigated and submitted to its determination, and it is the expression of the court’s decision that constitutes the rendition of the judgment. People ex rel. Schwartz v. Fagerholm, 1959, > 17 lll.2d 131, 161 N.E.2d 20. In the first instance and especially significant in cases where there is no reporter or recording device present at the hearing, the Order serves as a record of the proceedings and action of the Court and acts to preserve the record for future reference. Secondly, it establishes rights and creates duties upon the parties or others that are enforceable by the contempt power of the Court. A Judgment must be responsive to pleadings and relief should not be granted where not pleaded.

Zelko for Use of Oostema v. Homewood Sav. and Loan Ass’n, App.1959, > 20 III.App.2d 481, 156 N.E.2d 233. Thirdly, the Order may provide a basis for appeal. An Order is final and appealable when it terminates litigation on merits of case and determines rights of parties either upon entire controversy or upon some definite and separate part of it. Rizzo v. Board of Fire and Police Com’rs of Village of Franklin Park, Cook County, App. 1 Dist.1975, > 33 UI.App.3d 420, 337 N.E.2d 735

See Also Bankruptcy Lawyers Boston

Where petitioner did not contend that the trial court’s order was, in fact, a modification of maintenance or support, the order at issue could only affect the property disposition contained in the judgment; thus, the trial court had jurisdiction to enter an order modifying the property disposition only if conditions existed which would justify the reopening of a judgment as in other civil cases.

The trial court did not err in considering that the discharge of marital debt in bankruptcy constituted a substantial change in circumstances justifying an increase in support since (1) the discharge in bankruptcy relieved the father of the legal obligation of charge in bankruptcy relieved the father of the legal obligation of paying certain debts, thereby affecting a significant change in his financial condition, and (2) the wife became responsible for a substantial debt due to the father’s discharge of that debt.

Trial court’s denial of a reduction or termination of former husband’s maintenance was not an abuse of discretion, notwithstanding husband’s retirement and increased medical costs because of his present wife’s ill health; evidence established that the former husband had substantial assets from which to pay his present wife’s medical bills and the maintenance award.
The evidence was clear that the parties intended monthly payments to be something more than simple maintenance: where respondent conveyed away substantive marital property interests, in return for conveying her interest in farmland and farm equipment, she received only interest income from the trust and the monthly payments, and the payments were non-modifiable monthly payments until her death, rather than maintenance terminable by the provisions of this section.
Petitioner was earning $4 per hour, a sum only slightly above the minimum wage, while respondent had a career position with the State of Illinois, petitioner had no medical insurance and was afflicted with serious medical problems and housing difficulties; therefore, there was not basis to disturb the trial court’s order awarding periodic permanent maintenance to petitioner.
The court did not abuse its discretion in failing to reduce the amount of maintenance ordered, there was conflicting evidence regarding petitioners’ ability to pay the amount awarded, and the court chose to believe there was no substantial change in circumstances, because the petitioner had lied at trial about certain assets, and the court clearly could question petitioners’ credibility, therefore, petitioner’s request for a modification of support was denied.
Where, due to illness, respondent’s need for maintenance had increased substantially since the entry of the divorce decree, and where petitioner’s inability to pay maintenance was largely the result of indebtedness incurred by him, denial of modification of award was proper.