2012 IL App (1st) 110644
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Petitioner Lauretta Kehoe, formerly Lauretta Farkas, sought dissolution of marriage with Frank Farkas after a 6-year marriage.
- A 1988 dissolution judgment incorporated a marital settlement and a QDRO splitting Frank’s Schiller Park police pension, entitling Lauretta to half of the pension accrued before August 31, 1985.
- The QDRO described a method to compute Lauretta’s share and directed the pension fund to pay Lauretta upon Frank’s retirement.
- Frank retired in 2009; the pension fund advised Lauretta that the pension system requires a court-entered QILDRO post-amendments to the Pension Code.
- Lauretta moved in 2010 for entry of a QILDRO and Frank’s consent; the court denied, and Lauretta sought reconsideration, which was also denied in 2011.
- Appeal followed, with the appellate court affirming and remanding for entry of a proper QILDRO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying a QILDRO and reconsideration | Kehoe argues changes in pension law void the QDRO and require a QILDRO | Farkas contends the QDRO was controlling and its terms restrict Lauretta’s share | Yes; court affirmed denial and remanded for a proper QILDRO |
| Whether the QDRO's increased-benefits provision precludes Lauretta from post-dissolution increases | Kehoe contends she is entitled to the marital portion as computed | Farkas argues increases after dissolution are not part of the marital portion | Increased benefits provision bars Lauretta from post-dissolution increases; calculation based on dissolution value |
| Whether Richardson reserved-jurisdiction approach applies given the QDRO was incorporated | Kehoe urged use of Hunt/reserved jurisdiction as in Richardson | Farkas relied on a fixed QDRO; not silent on method | Richardson distinguished; not applicable because QDRO already set the method of apportionment |
| Whether the case complies with the Illinois Pension Code after the 1999 amendments | Kehoe seeks a QILDRO to enforce the original agreement | Farkas maintains the original QDRO, as incorporated, governs | QILDRO required to implement the original agreement; remand to craft an appropriate order |
| Whether the savings clause permits重新 formulation of apportionment | Kehoe relies on savings clause to amend to achieve greater share | Savings clause does not allow broader apportionment beyond the QDRO | Savings clause does not authorize expanding Lauretta’s share beyond original QDRO terms |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Richardson, 381 Ill.App.3d 47 (2008) (judgment silent on method; reserved-jurisdiction method available)
- In re Marriage of Wisniewski, 286 Ill.App.3d 236 (1997) (reserved-jurisdiction context discussed)
- In re Marriage of Culp, 399 Ill.App.3d 542 (2010) (settlement lacked explicit apportionment language; not controlling here)
- In re Marriage of Hunt, 78 Ill.App.3d 653 (1979) (reservoir of reserved-jurisdiction approach for pension division)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill.2d 21 (2009) (contracts-like interpretation of marital settlement agreements)
- In re Marriage of Schurtz, 382 Ill.App.3d 1123 (2008) (emphasizes interpreting unambiguous settlement language)