In re Marriage of Cole
58 N.E.3d 1286
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Husband (67) and Wife (63) married in 1979, separated 2009; no children of the marriage. Husband is a disabled veteran with gross monthly income of $4,951 plus $41 annuity; Wife’s gross monthly income is $734 from Social Security. Both have significant health issues and living expenses ~ $2,800/month.
- In December 2009 the parties entered a Missouri legal separation judgment incorporating a separation agreement requiring Husband to pay $2,200/month maintenance labeled contractual and nonmodifiable.
- Husband filed for dissolution; the 2014 hearing concluded before January 1, 2015, but the dissolution judgment was entered February 24, 2015. The trial court set aside the nonmodifiable separation agreement as unconscionable and awarded Wife $2,088/month maintenance (terminable on death, remarriage, or qualifying cohabitation) and required Husband to pay half of Wife’s health insurance premium until Medicare eligibility.
- Husband moved to reconsider arguing the 2015 amendment to the Illinois maintenance statute (Public Act 98-961, adding 750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)) should govern; under that formula his payment would be $1,328.49/month. The trial court denied rehearing, holding the amendment is substantive and applies prospectively only.
- The court found the facts and evidentiary record were developed in 2014 (pre-amendment) and applying the new statutory formula would retroactively change parties’ rights; the court also upheld the maintenance amount and the health-insurance order as within its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2015 maintenance formula applies to cases heard pre‑amendment but decided post‑amendment | The new statute should apply to maintenance orders entered after the amendment; it does not change entitlement factors, only amount/duration | The amendment is substantive and should not be applied to cases whose hearings and evidentiary records closed before the effective date | The amendment is substantive; applying it here would be retroactive, so it does not apply (prospective only) |
| Whether setting aside a contractual, nonmodifiable separation agreement was proper | Argued implicitly that the separation agreement should control | Trial court: nonmodifiable provision created unconscionable economic result given changed incomes | Court affirmed setting aside the nonmodifiable clause as unconscionable |
| Whether the maintenance award ($2,088/mo) was an abuse of discretion | Husband: even under old statute award and duration are excessive; formula would yield lower amount | Wife: needs, health, length of marriage, and standard of living justify award | Court found award within trial court’s wide discretion and not an abuse |
| Whether trial court had authority to order Husband to provide health insurance for Wife | Husband: no statutory authority | Wife: ancillary relief, within court’s equitable powers | Court held order was a proper exercise of judicial power and not an abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayashi v. Illinois Dep’t of Fin. & Prof’l Reg., 25 N.E.3d 570 (2014) (statute not retrospective merely because applied to conduct predating enactment)
- People ex rel. Madigan v. J.T. Einoder, Inc., 28 N.E.3d 758 (2015) (prospectivity is default when temporal reach is unclear)
- Caveney v. Bower, 797 N.E.2d 596 (Ill. 2003) (procedural changes may be retroactive; substantive changes may not)
- Schweickert v. AG Servs. of Am., Inc., 823 N.E.2d 213 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (distinguishing procedural versus substantive changes)
- In re Marriage of Krane, 681 N.E.2d 609 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (trial court discretion in determining reasonable needs and maintenance)
- In re Marriage of Shen, 35 N.E.3d 1178 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) (review of maintenance awards for abuse of discretion)
- In re Marriage of Flory, 525 N.E.2d 1008 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (court may order one spouse to provide health insurance for the other)