In re Marriage of Cole
2016 IL App (5th) 150224
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Married 1979; separated 2009; no children of the marriage. Husband: 67, disabled veteran, throat cancer; income = Social Security + VA disability = $4,951/mo + $41 union annuity. Wife: 63, health problems, little earning capacity, Social Security $734/mo.
- Parties obtained a 2009 Missouri legal-separation judgment incorporating a separation agreement that required Husband to pay Wife $2,200/month maintenance and health insurance; agreement labeled maintenance nonmodifiable.
- Husband filed for dissolution; the separation judgment was enrolled and consolidated. Trial took place October 24, 2014; evidence closed then. Court did not enter final dissolution judgment until February 24, 2015.
- Trial court set aside the nonmodifiable separation agreement as unconscionable, awarded Wife maintenance of $2,088/month (reduced from $2,200) and ordered Husband to pay half of Wife’s health-insurance premium until Medicare eligibility; maintenance terminable on death, remarriage, or qualifying cohabitation.
- Husband moved to reconsider, arguing that the January 1, 2015 spousal-maintenance amendments (Public Act 98-961) and its formula (30% payor minus 20% payee) should govern; under that formula he would pay $1,328.49/month. Trial court denied relief, ruling the statute substantive and prospective only because the hearing and evidence closed before the amendment’s effective date.
- Husband appealed, arguing (1) the new statute should apply to orders entered after Jan. 1, 2015 even if the case was tried earlier, or (2) the award was an abuse of discretion under the old law.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Jan. 1, 2015 maintenance formula (Public Act 98-961) applies to cases tried before but decided after its effective date | New statute governs maintenance orders entered after its effective date; it is not retroactive because it does not change entitlement factors, only amount/duration; applying it would not impose retroactive liability | The amendment is substantive (redefines maintenance rights and calculation) and therefore cannot be applied to cases where the evidence closed before the statute took effect | Court held the amendment is substantive and prospective only; it does not apply where the hearing/evidence closed before Jan. 1, 2015 |
| Whether applying the new formula here would operate retrospectively | The statute applies to new maintenance orders rendered after the amendment; not retroactive simply because events predate it | Applying the new formula would attach new legal consequences to completed events and thus be retroactive | Court agreed with Wife: applying the new formula would be retroactive and improper here |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in setting maintenance at $2,088/month under pre-amendment law | Even under old statute, Husband argued the amount/duration was excessive and should be $1,328.49 based on new formula | Trial court relied on statutory factors (length of marriage, incomes, health, standard of living) and reduced contractual maintenance to avoid unconscionability | Court found no abuse of discretion; $2,088/month was supported by the record |
| Whether the court had authority to order Husband to provide health insurance for Wife | Husband contended no statutory authority to require spousal health insurance | Wife cited precedent allowing courts to require insurance as part of equitable relief in dissolution | Court held ordering health insurance premium sharing was within its power and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayashi v. Ill. Dep’t of Fin. & Prof. Reg., 25 N.E.3d 570 (Ill. 2014) (statute not retrospective merely because it covers conduct predating enactment)
- People ex rel. Madigan v. J.T. Einoder, Inc., 28 N.E.3d 758 (Ill. 2015) (prospectivity is default when statute is silent on temporal reach)
- Caveney v. Bower, 797 N.E.2d 596 (Ill. 2003) (procedural vs. substantive distinction governs retroactivity)
- Schweickert v. AG Servs. of Am., Inc., 823 N.E.2d 213 (Ill. App. 2005) (procedural changes affect enforcement; substantive changes create or define rights)
- In re Marriage of Krane, 681 N.E.2d 609 (Ill. App. 1997) (trial court discretion in determining reasonable needs and maintenance)
- In re Marriage of Shen, 35 N.E.3d 1178 (Ill. App. 2015) (standard of review: maintenance decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Marriage of Flory, 525 N.E.2d 1008 (Ill. App. 1988) (courts may order a spouse to provide health insurance as equitable relief)