2012 IL App (2d) 110250
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- This case involves modification of a maintenance award after dissolution of marriage in Illinois.
- The judgment dissolved the parties’ marriage in January 2006 and incorporated a settlement whereby Mark owed Deb $10,000 in maintenance for six years.
- The payment schedule specified two $5,000 payments each year, with last payment in 2011.
- In 2010 Deb petitioned to modify maintenance due to a substantial change in circumstances, and the trial court awarded $3,000 per month.
- Mark argued the award was maintenance in gross (nonmodifiable) and therefore not subject to modification.
- The appellate court affirmed the modification, finding ambiguity in the settlement and no clear evidence that the award was intended as maintenance in gross.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction to modify the maintenance | Bohnsack contends maintenance in gross cannot be modified. | Bohnsack argues modification is permissible; jurisdiction exists for petitions to modify. | Yes, court had jurisdiction to modify; modification allowed. |
| Whether the maintenance was in gross or periodic under the settlement | Bohnsack claims the agreement clearly created maintenance in gross. | Bohnsack argues ambiguity; no explicit gross labeling or total sum. | Ambiguity prevents presuming maintenance in gross; modification proper. |
| What standard of review applies to postjudgment modification | Review should be de novo for legal interpretation of the agreement. | Review could be abuse of discretion given new matter on postjudgment motion. | Court did not err under any applicable standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (Ill. 2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction and justiciable matters; maintenance modification context)
- Mass v. Mass, 102 Ill. App. 3d 984 (Ill. App. 1981) (distinguishes periodic maintenance from maintenance in gross)
- Hildebrand v. Hildebrand, 166 Ill. App. 3d 795 (Ill. App. 1988) (maintenance in gross requires definite sum/installments; vesting context)
- Freeman v. Freeman, 106 Ill. 2d 290 (Ill. 1985) (maintenance in gross is nonmodifiable; exceptional circumstances)
- Michaelson v. Michaelson, 359 Ill. App. 3d 706 (Ill. App. 2005) (contract interpretation to determine maintenance type; plain language)
- Harris v. Harris, 284 Ill. App. 3d 389 (Ill. App. 1996) (absence of specific total sum may indicate periodic maintenance)
- Burgstrom v. Burgstrom, 135 Ill. App. 3d 854 (Ill. App. 1985) (maintenance in gross not presumed; labeling matters)