2018 IL App (5th) 160472
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- David Harms and Ruth Parker (formerly Harms) divorced by final orders in 2007; David was ordered to pay $1,300/month maintenance, nonmodifiable until Ruth turned 65, and the court later characterized the award as effectively permanent.
- The dissolution petition was filed in 2005 (marriage length at filing: 19 years, 9 months); the 2007 orders assigned the marital home debt to Ruth but awarded the 20.5-acre parcel (purchased with that loan) to David.
- In 2014 Ruth petitioned to increase maintenance; David petitioned to terminate or reduce it. At hearing (2016) Ruth was ~70, retired, receiving Social Security; David’s income had increased substantially.
- The trial court applied the 2015 amendment to the Dissolution Act (which added guideline formulas in 750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)) and found no reason to deviate from the guidelines, raising maintenance to $1,900/month and making it permanent.
- David appealed, arguing (1) the new guidelines should not produce permanent maintenance because the marriage length at filing was under 20 years and the court failed to justify any departure from the guidelines for duration, and (2) the amount and duration were an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (David) | Defendant's Argument (Ruth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2015 maintenance guidelines apply to modification proceedings of a maintenance order entered before the amendment | Guidelines should apply and, under them, permanent maintenance is only for marriages >=20 years; here marriage was <20 years at filing, so duration must follow formula unless court expressly departs and explains | Guidelines need not apply to preexisting awards; even if considered, trial court properly exercised discretion to award permanent maintenance given Ruth’s age and unemployability | Guidelines do not apply to modification of preexisting maintenance orders; trial court erred in saying they applied but outcome affirmed on discretionary grounds |
| Whether the trial court erred by awarding permanent maintenance without statutory findings required when departing from guidelines | Court failed to state reasons for departing from duration guideline and misapplied statute (must use filing date to compute marriage length) | The court had discretion and permanent maintenance was appropriate on the merits given Ruth’s circumstances | Court misconstrued statutory reach of guidelines and omitted required findings, but permanent maintenance was nonetheless supported by record and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the increase to $1,900/month was an abuse of discretion | Increase excessive given Ruth’s Social Security and alleged overstated expenses; evidence of gambling and failure to pay assigned loan should reduce award | Court considered income, expenses, gambling evidence, and found Ruth’s needs and inability to be self-supporting justify increase | No abuse of discretion; court considered required factors and award was reasonable given income disparity and Ruth’s needs |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49 (Ill. 2006) (statutes relating to the same subject are presumed consistent and harmonious)
- Carpenter v. Carpenter, 286 Ill. App. 3d 969 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (purpose of rehabilitative maintenance is to enable recipient to become self-sufficient; rehabilitative limits require a specified term)
- Nord v. Nord, 402 Ill. App. 3d 288 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (recipient need not exhaust all assets before receiving maintenance)
- Lubbs v. Lubbs, 313 Ill. App. 3d 968 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain legislative intent from the statute’s plain language)