In re Marriage of Dynako
189 N.E.3d 1
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Betsy (petitioner) and Stephen Dynako divorced by judgment entered Feb. 8, 2016; their marital settlement agreement (MSA) set a scheduled maintenance plan for 8 years and stated payments were “non-modifiable pursuant to Section 502(f).”
- Respondent (Stephen) defaulted on large maintenance payments; the trial court found him in indirect civil contempt and ordered partial payments and job-search requirements.
- Stephen later moved to modify or terminate maintenance, claiming changed financial circumstances and that the MSA’s non‑modifiability language was inadequate because it did not state “amount, duration, or both.”
- The parties and trial court agreed to decide first whether the MSA’s non‑modifiability clause was enforceable under the version of 750 ILCS 5/502(f) effective Jan. 1, 2016 (which applies because judgment was entered after that date).
- The trial court held the MSA’s plain language made maintenance nonmodifiable under section 502(f) and denied Stephen’s motion; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MSA’s statement that maintenance is “non‑modifiable pursuant to Section 502(f)” rendered the maintenance obligation nonmodifiable under the amended Act | Dynako: the MSA expressly makes maintenance nonmodifiable and cites §502(f); enforceable as written | Stephen: the MSA failed to use the statutory phrase “non‑modifiable in amount, duration, or both,” so it does not meet the amended §502(f) requirement and is therefore modifiable upon a substantial change | Court: The MSA’s clear, express statement that maintenance is nonmodifiable (with citation to §502(f)) is sufficient; the obligation is nonmodifiable and the motion to modify was denied |
Key Cases Cited
- 1010 Lake Shore Ass’n v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2015 IL 118372 (Illinois 2015) (statutory construction: plain language controls)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (2009) (marital settlement agreements are contracts and are interpreted to effectuate parties’ intent; review de novo)
- Lewis v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, 2020 IL 124107 (2020) (questions of law, including statutory interpretation, reviewed de novo)