In re Marriage of Farrell
2017 IL App (1st) 170611
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Joanne Farrell and Thomas Howe divorced by agreed judgment in 2010 incorporating a marital settlement agreement that awarded Joanne 1/2 of the marital portion of Thomas’s pension from the Fireman’s Annuity and Benefit Fund via a QILDRO/QDRO; Exhibit A placed a present value on “Thomas’ Firemen’s Pension.”
- Section 3.2(d) reserved to Thomas “all the remaining interest in the FIREMAN’S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND not conveyed above.”
- Thomas was injured on duty in 2013, began receiving duty disability benefits under Article 6 of the Illinois Pension Code, and is eligible for those benefits until mandatory retirement at age 63, when an annuity would commence.
- Joanne petitioned to enforce the settlement and sought one-half of Thomas’s duty disability benefits; Thomas conceded she was entitled to one-half of the retirement annuity but argued disability benefits were excluded.
- The circuit court held the settlement was unambiguous and did not require splitting duty disability benefits; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Farrell) | Defendant's Argument (Howe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “pension” in the settlement includes pre-retirement duty disability benefits | "Pension" includes Thomas’s disability payments; she is entitled to 50% of the marital portion of the disability pension | The agreement addresses the retirement annuity only; disability payments are income replacement and not divisible under the QILDRO provision | The term “pension” is unambiguous and refers to retirement annuity, not duty disability benefits; Joanne not entitled to share of duty disability benefits |
| Whether the settlement’s omission of disability benefits creates ambiguity permitting parol evidence | The omission renders the term ambiguous and court should consider extrinsic evidence and parties’ discussions | Language is clear; no ambiguity; parol evidence unnecessary | Agreement is unambiguous; intent drawn from contract language only |
| Whether Article 6 of the Pension Code treats disability benefits as part of a pension divisible by QILDRO | Disability benefits are a form of pension Joan should share | Article 6 distinguishes annuities from duty disability benefits; disability benefits are payable only until compulsory retirement and are not the annuity divided by a QILDRO | Article 6 distinguishes annuity from duty disability benefits; settlement’s reference to pension means annuity at retirement |
| Whether omitted argument that disability benefits are "discovered property" can be raised on appeal | Even if excluded from pension clause, disability benefits qualify as discovered property under the agreement | Forfeited: argument not raised below; trial court not given opportunity to rule | Appellate court refuses to consider discovered-property claim as forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Belk, 239 Ill. App. 3d 806 (Ill. App. 1992) (courts should enforce settlement terms as written; failure to address disability benefits does not allow court to add terms)
- In re Marriage of Schurtz, 382 Ill. App. 3d 1123 (Ill. App. 2008) (distinguishes disability payments from retirement annuity under applicable pension statute)
- In re Marriage of Davis, 286 Ill. App. 3d 1065 (Ill. App. 1997) (contract language controls when agreement is unambiguous; ambiguity allows parol evidence)
- In re Marriage of Marshall, 166 Ill. App. 3d 954 (Ill. App. 1988) (interpreting pension vs. disability issues under different statutory scheme)
- State v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, 2016 IL 118422 (Ill. 2016) (statutes in existence at contract execution are considered part of the contract)