In re Marriage of Branklin
967 N.E.2d 358
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Married in 1981; one child Allison who is emancipated
- Gary, age ~58 in 2010, is an endodontist earning about $400,000; Karen is a teacher earning about $75,000
- Parties entered a marital settlement in 2010 resolving all issues except maintenance and life insurance
- Trial court awarded Karen $3,000/month permanent maintenance after a three-day hearing; denied securing with life insurance
- Post-judgment, Gary appeals maintenance amount; Karen cross-appeals for higher maintenance and life-insurance security
- Court remanded to consider whether Gary should be required to purchase life insurance and on what terms, per 2012 statutory amendment and Walker precedent
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether $3,000/month permanent maintenance is appropriate | Karen argues for higher maintenance given needs; targets standard of living | Gary contends no maintenance or lower amount is justified | Maintenance affirmed at $3,000/month |
| Whether maintenance should be secured by life insurance | Karen seeks life-insurance security to guarantee payment | Gary relies on Feldman to deny security for maintenance | Remanded to decide if life insurance should secure maintenance under 2012 amendment |
| Whether trial court properly weighed Gary's age/health in maintenance | Karen argues court should compensate for future income decline | Gary's age/health justify reduced/temporary maintenance | Court did not abuse discretion; permanent maintenance affirmed considering health and earning prospects |
| Whether court improperly relied on Gary's current income rather than full assets | Karen argues for higher award reflecting Gary's assets and income | Gary contends current income suffices for ability to pay | Court properly considered payor's ability to pay; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Feldman, 199 Ill. App. 3d 1002 (Ill. App. 1990) (court declined to require life-insurance security for maintenance)
- In re Marriage of Clarke, 125 Ill. App. 3d 432 (Ill. App. 1984) (no authority to order maintenance security absent agreement)
- In re Marriage of Walker, 386 Ill. App. 3d 1034 (Ill. App. 2008) (court allowed security-like effects through assets; statutory change supports security power)
- In re Marriage of Murphy, 359 Ill. App. 3d 289 (Ill. App. 2005) (maintenance amount must reflect reasonable needs versus luxurious lifestyle, not permanent sameness)
- In re Marriage of Haas, 215 Ill. App. 3d 959 (Ill. App. 1991) (permanent maintenance considered where recipient cannot become self-sufficient)