$75,000.00 UNPAID CHILD SUPPORT RECOVERY, AVAILABLE TO REPRESENT CLIENTS FROM NEOGA, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, MARSHALL, CLARK COUNTY, MATTOON, COLES COUNTY, ILLINOIS. OUR CLIENT HAD BEEN MARRIED TO AN ANHEUSER BUSH EXECUTIVE. THERE WAS A CLAUSE IN THE DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT PROVIDED THAT OUR CLIENT WAS TO RECEIVE CHILD SUPPORT WITH AN ADDITIONAL BONUS OR OVERRIDE BASED ON INCREASES IN INCOME OF HER HIGHLY PAID FORMER SPOUSE. UNKNOWN AND UNDISCLOSED TO OUR CLIENT, HER FORMER SPOUSE RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL STOCK OPTIONS AFTER THE DIVORCE. COUNSEL FOR THE FORMER SPOUSE CLAIMED THAT THE STOCK OPTIONS WERE NOT INCOME AND THEREFORE WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE OVERRIDE OR BONUS FOR ADDITIONAL CHILD SUPPORT. WE CONDUCTED DISCOVERY. WE OBTAINED COPIES OF TAX RETURNS. THE TAX RETURNS OF THE FORMER SPOUSE PROVED THAT HE HAD CONSIDERED SAME AS INCOME SINCE THEY WERE IDENTIFIED AS SUCH ON HIS TAX RETURNS. WE RECOVERED IN EXCESS OF $75,000 FOR OUR CLIENT, POSSIBLY ONE OF THE LARGEST BACK CHILD SUPPORT RECOVERIES FOR AN EDWARDSVILLE, ILLINOIS LAW FIRM, METRO EAST, BELLEVILLE, ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS LAW FIRM HANDLING ESTATE LAW, FAMILY LAW, REAL ESTATE LAW AND TAX LAW CASES.
$585,000.00 recovered in divorce case. We represented a wife in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. Her husband was a successful business person in Southern Illinois, including in the agricultural and seed business. Tragic had struck our clients on many occasions before the divorce including losing three children in three separate accidents. Our client was not thinking straight. Her husband’s attorneys were attempting to coerce her into a meager settlement and divorce resolution, not in her best interests, but solely in the best interests of her husband because he had contacts with the right people. Once we agreed to become involved, we immediately disassociated ourselves from the settlement discussions that had transpired. After discovery, and after the intense settlement negotiations, our client received in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the marital estate, including because our client could not count on meaningful job opportunities in the future, and because her husband had a favorable financial future.