In re Marriage of Kehoe
2012 IL App (1st) 110644
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Married 1979, separated 1985; dissolution judgment in 1988 incorporated a settlement and a QDRO
- Settlement provided Lauretta shall receive one-half of Frank’s pension value from employment to separation (Aug. 31, 1985) and directed a QDRO to pay Lauretta upon retirement
- QDRO identified the marital portion using a formula tied to years of marriage and pension terms
- After retirement (Nov. 17, 2009) Lauretta was informed Illinois police pension funds require a court-entered QILDRO
- Legislation amended Pension Code (1999) to void pre-amendment orders not implemented by a retirement system, triggering Lauretta’s QILDRO remedy under the savings clause
- Trial court denied Lauretta’s motion for entry of a QILDRO and for reconsideration; appellate court affirmed denial and remanded for an appropriate QILDRO
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the QDRO and settlement precluded a reserved-jurisdiction method | Kehoe argues reserved jurisdiction (Hunt) should apply | Farkas contends the QDRO already set pension apportionment and increases clause controls | No; the QDRO/settlement fixed the method and denied reserved-jurisdiction approach |
| Whether the trial court could enter a QILDRO consistent with the original QDRO | Kehoe seeks a QILDRO honoring the settlement as amended by the 1999 Code change | Farkas asserts savings clause cannot expand beyond the original QDRO terms | Yes; court may enter a QILDRO aligned with the original QDRO terms and settlement |
| Applicability of Richardson after a QDRO was incorporated in the judgment | Kehoe relies on Richardson to permit reserved calculation | Farkas distinguishes this case due to express QDRO terms | Richardson does not control here; the judgment was not silent and reserved-jurisdiction is inappropriate |
| Effect of increased-benefits provision on apportionment | Kehoe argues broader consideration of post-dissolution increases | Farkas argues increases after dissolution are not marital | Increases post-dissolution are not part of the marital portion; value based on dissolution date |
| Compliance with the Pension Code amendment and savings clause | Kehoe seeks QILDRO to implement original order | Farkas argues savings clause limits reformation | Court must remand for a QILDRO consistent with the settlement and QDRO |
Key Cases Cited
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (2009) (contract interpretation of a settlement agreement and QDRO terms)
- In re Marriage of Richardson, 381 Ill. App. 3d 47 (2008) (reserved-jurisdiction approach when judgment is silent on apportionment)
- In re Marriage of Wisniewski, 286 Ill. App. 3d 236 (1997) (prior guidance on pension apportionment)
- In re Marriage of Culp, 399 Ill. App. 3d 542 (2010) (settlement language affecting pension division distinct from reserved jurisdiction)
- In re Hunt, 78 Ill. App. 3d 653 (1979) (early framework for reserved-jurisdiction method (Hunt formula))
- Smithberg v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 192 Ill. 2d 291 (2000) (statutory authority to direct payment via QILDRO after amendment)