In Re Marriage of Anderson
409 Ill. App. 3d 191
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Patricia Anderson and James A. Anderson, married since 1951, had a California dissolution in 1988 that was enrolled in Illinois in 1992, with no minor children.
- Original 1988 California judgment awarded James inter alia a Wisconsin vacation home, half of San Diego proceeds, six IRAs in his name, and spousal maintenance of $3,000/month; Patricia received four IRAs, bonds, and an $8,483 equalization payment.
- California reduced Patricia’s maintenance to $950/month in 1992; Illinois later entered orders reflecting that modification.
- In 1999, James sought to modify maintenance to terminate; he claimed a material change in circumstances due to age, health, and depleted retirement funds; Patricia sought to increase maintenance due to rising living costs.
- By 2009, James, aged 80, was unemployed with income from social security and a depleted Morgan Stanley retirement account; he continued to own two homes and relied on withdrawals to fund living expenses.
- Patricia, living in assisted living, had approximately $70k–$92k in a Chase account, monthly expenses around $2,000, and significant debt; she faced potential public assistance but argued maintenance could not be substituted by welfare.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial change in circumstances justified terminating maintenance | Anderson contends substantial change exists due to depleted retirement funds and age/illness. | Anderson argues changes are not substantial or not attributable to payor's ability. | Yes; substantial change shown justifying termination. |
| Whether the trial court correctly terminated maintenance after finding a substantial change | Anderson argues total termination aligns with modified financial reality and needs. | Anderson asserts court should consider total finances and potential ongoing needs. | Remand to reexamine entitlement; court erred by relying on public welfare assumption. |
| Whether contempt for nonpayment should be found given modified maintenance | And Patricia argues failure to pay constitutes contempt. | Anderson asserts remand on contempt is appropriate due to misapprehensions about assets. | Remand to reconsider contempt in light of updated asset valuation and needs. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Neuman, 295 Ill.App.3d 212 (1998) (substantial change requires change in needs or payor's ability)
- In re Marriage of Logston, 103 Ill.2d 266 (1984) (burden on payor to show inability to pay after noncompliance with order)
- In re Marriage of Connors, 303 Ill.App.3d 219 (1999) (limit evidence to period since last modification to avoid relitigation)
- Remick v. Remick, 456 A.2d 163 (1983) (public welfare not to substitute for alimony)
- Safford v. Safford, 391 N.W.2d 548 (1986) (public welfare should not replace maintenance)
- In re Schrimpf, 293 Ill.App.3d 246 (1997) (consideration of separate property in maintenance determinations)
- In re Phillips, 244 Ill.App.3d 577 (1993) (value of payor's nonmarital property considered in maintenance)
- In re Vernon, 253 Ill.App.3d 783 (1993) (standard of living and resources inform maintenance decisions)
- In re Waller, 253 Ill.App.3d 360 (1993) (retirement age and health impact on modification decisions)