In re Marriage of Dynako, 2021 IL 126835

Parties married in 2000; no children; dissolution entered Feb. 8, 2016 incorporating a marital settlement agreement (MSA).
MSA specified an eight-year maintenance schedule with fixed monthly/annual amounts that decreased after year four.
MSA included the clause: “Said maintenance payments shall be nonmodifiable pursuant to Section 502(f) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.”
On Dec. 20, 2018, Stephen petitioned to modify or terminate maintenance, arguing the MSA did not validly make maintenance nonmodifiable because it failed to specify non‑modifiability as to amount, duration, or both; he also asserted changed financial circumstances.
The circuit court held the maintenance was nonmodifiable under 750 ILCS 5/502(f); the appellate court affirmed; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the parties’ MSA made maintenance nonmodifiable under 750 ILCS 5/502(f)	Dynako (Stephen) argued the MSA was insufficient because section 502(f) requires an express statement that non‑modifiability applies to amount, duration, or both; absent that, modification upon a substantial change is allowed.	Dynako (Betsy) argued the MSA expressly made payments nonmodifiable by citing §502(f) and listing the fixed schedule, evidencing intent to bar modification of amount and duration.	The Court held the MSA’s language — a defined payment schedule plus the express statement that payments are “nonmodifiable pursuant to Section 502(f)” — evidenced intent to make maintenance nonmodifiable in both amount and duration, so the court could not modify it.

Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford School District No. 205, 216 Ill. 2d 455 (2005) (plain statutory language governs legislative intent).
Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (2009) (marital settlement agreements are construed as contracts; intent is gleaned from agreement language).
Lawler v. University of Chicago Medical Center, 2017 IL 120745 (2017) (courts may not read exceptions into clear statutory language).
Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Moore, 2021 IL 125785 (2021) (statutory interpretation and de novo review principles).