• 8 We are, however, persuaded by the husband's contention that it is improper to award the camping equipment and piano to the children, because the Act contemplates the division of marital property between the spouses. The issue of whether marital property may be awarded to the children is addressed in In re Marriage of Raski (1978), 64 Ill. App.3d 629, 632. As noted in Raski, the Act contemplates that the duty of support normally continues only during the minority of the child and there is no provision in the Act authorizing an outright conveyance of marital property even in trust which is unrelated to a child's support of maintenance. ( 64 Ill. App.3d 629, 632-33.)

Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 40, par. 602. Respondent relies on Knox v. Knox (1975), 31 Ill. App.3d 816, 334 N.E.2d 891, and In re Marriage of Raski (1978), 64 Ill. App.3d 629, 381 N.E.2d 744, that the amount of child support lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be set aside unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. However, Knox, while affirming a child support award of $300 per month, noted that the trial court had considered the relative incomes of the parties, the needs of the children, and the estimated monthly needs of the custodial parent.

Determination of the proper amount of child support lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be set aside unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. ( In re Marriage of Edelstein (1980), 82 Ill. App.3d 574, 403 N.E.2d 323; In re Marriage of Preston (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 672, 402 N.E.2d 332; In re Marriage of Reyna (1979), 78 Ill. App.3d 1010, 398 N.E.2d 641; In re Marriage of Raski (1978), 64 Ill. App.3d 629, 381 N.E.2d 744.) Under section 505 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 40, par. 505), the factors to be considered in granting child support are the financial resources of the child, the financial resources and needs of the custodial parent, the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved, the physical and emotional condition of the child and his educational needs, and the financial resources and needs of the noncustodial parent or parents. While the respondent testified that his net income was approximately $11,000, the trial court could have determined that the respondent in fact had a much greater net income for his average gross income of $70,000. Indeed, the court could have concluded that the lower net income figure represented respondent's attempt to shelter income from taxation and his wife and child by passing income to optional dependents, and taking other deductions from his gross income which did no

" This court in In re Marriage of Raski (1978), 64 Ill. App.3d 629, 631, 381 N.E.2d 744, 747, stated: "It is firmly established in Illinois that the amount of child support lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be set aside unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

Moreover, trial courts must consider the overall picture in disposing of marital property while providing for maintenance, child support, and attorneys fees. ( Raski v. Raski (1978), 64 Ill. App.3d 629, 381 N.E.2d 744.) With this proposition in mind, Illinois courts and the courts of other jurisdictions adopting the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act have found it desirable to remand to the trial court all interrelated property and support issues once it has been determined that a marital asset was not considered at the time of the original disposition ( Schubert v. Schubert (1978), 66 Ill. App.3d 29, 383 N.E.2d 266), or that a marital asset was improperly valued.

See, e.g., In re Marriage of Raski, 64 Ill.App.3d 629, 632, 21 Ill.Dec. 417, 381 N.E.2d 744 (1978) (noting common law rule that parents' liability for child support terminates at the child's majority, with “certain statutory exceptions” found in the recently enacted Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act). ¶ 60 We conclude for several reasons that the history of section 513, viewed in light of the other legislative enactments discussed above, reveals that Illinois law does not impose an obligation on married parents to support a disabled child beyond the age of majority.

See, e.g., In re Marriage of Raski, 64 Ill. App. 3d 629, 632 (1978) (noting common law rule that parents' liability for child support terminates at the child's majority, with "certain statutory exceptions" found in the recently enacted Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act). ¶ 60 We conclude for several reasons that the history of section 513, viewed in light of the other legislative enactments discussed above, reveals that Illinois law does not impose an obligation on married parents to support a disabled child beyond the age of majority.

But see Comment, Parent and Child — Divorce Decree May Be Modified to Provide Support Beyond Child's Minority. (Illinois), 1957 U. Ill. L.F. 668, 671-72.) We agree with the appellate court opinion of In re Marriage of Raski (1978), 64 Ill. App.3d 629, wherein the court found that the provisions of the new act do not extend the parental obligation for support beyond minority except in limited statutory situations. (See, e.g., Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 40, par. 513.)

Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Raski, 64 Ill.App.3d 629, 633 (1978)). We find the decisions above persuasive and lead us to conclude that equitable tolling should be applied in actions for the recovery of property, such as replevin.

Nevertheless, we find them persuasive. See id. (quoting In re Marriage of Raski, 64 Ill.App.3d 629, 633 (1978)) ("Although they are not binding, comparable court decisions of other jurisdictions 'are persuasive authority and entitled to respect.'").