In re Marriage of Carstens, 101 N.E.3d 181

Parties divorced in 2004; judgment incorporated an MSA awarding petitioner (Sue) two maintenance streams and referencing respondent’s (John) substantial income; initial maintenance included $5,000/month labeled “indefinite.”
In 2011 Judge Ukena denied termination and converted maintenance to $5,000/month indefinite maintenance; neither party appealed that order.
In late 2015 respondent was terminated from Libertyville Bank; he received a separation payout and later took lower-paying work at The Private Bank; he filed to terminate or reduce maintenance in 2016.
The trial court (2017) found a substantial change in circumstances, reduced the monthly maintenance to $4,196.40 (effective March 1, 2017), and ordered 30% of income above base salary as additional maintenance, but declined to revisit the duration of maintenance, invoking the law-of-the-case doctrine and rejecting application of the 2016 statutory duration guidelines (§504(b-1)).
On appeal respondent argued the trial court erred by treating Judge Ukena’s classification of the award as binding law of the case and by refusing to apply §504(b-1) duration guidelines; the appellate court affirmed the reduction in amount but reversed as to the duration ruling and remanded to address duration under §504(b-1).

Issue	Petitioner's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred the trial court from reconsidering the "indefinite" designation and modifying duration of maintenance	Petitioner: law-of-the-case would not bar relitigation; alternatively, respondent presented no evidence warranting termination	Respondent: law-of-the-case should not preclude modification; maintenance may be modified on substantial change in circumstances	Court: Law-of-the-case doctrine does not bar modification of maintenance; trial court erred to refuse to address duration and remanded for consideration
Whether the §504(b-1) duration guidelines (effective 2016) apply to this modification proceeding	Petitioner: guidelines inapplicable to awards labeled permanent/indefinite and later 2017 amendment (§504(b-8)) negates application; application would be unjust	Respondent: §801(c) makes 2016 amendments applicable to modification petitions filed after Jan 1, 2016; §504(b-1) should guide duration unless court finds guidelines inappropriate	Court: §801(c) applies; trial court erred in refusing to apply §504(b-1); remanded to evaluate duration under §504(b-1), with discretion to deviate but must state findings if it does

Connors v. Connors, 303 Ill. App. 3d 219 (1999) (trial court may reconsider maintenance when circumstances change)
Mittra v. Mittra, 114 Ill. App. 3d 627 (1983) (indefinite maintenance is subject to modification)
Bramson v. Bramson, 100 Ill. App. 3d 657 (1981) (same)
Ficken v. Alton & Southern Ry. Co., 291 Ill. App. 3d 635 (1997) (describing limits of law-of-the-case doctrine)
Norris v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 368 Ill. App. 3d 576 (2006) (law-of-the-case requires a prior appeal to bind later proceedings)
People v. Williams, 138 Ill. 2d 377 (1990) (law-of-the-case doctrine does not bar correction of error or changed circumstances)