In re Marriage of Podolsky
2022 IL App (5th) 210195-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background:
- Parties divorced in 2016; the dissolution judgment incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA) prepared by petitioner Rita.
- MSA required Michael to pay $10,000/month permanent maintenance, secured by life insurance; other termination events (death, remarriage, cohabitation) were specified.
- MSA §10.6(D) required any amendment or modification to be a written, signed agreement but prefaced that requirement with: "Except as otherwise provided for in Section 502 of the [Act]."
- In April 2020 Michael moved to modify maintenance, alleging a substantial income decline from his oil business due to COVID-market conditions; Rita moved to dismiss the modification petition and sought contempt for unpaid maintenance.
- The trial court granted Rita’s motion, concluding the MSA made maintenance non‑modifiable except by written agreement and declined to reach Michael’s substantial-change claim; Michael’s motion to reconsider was denied.
- The appellate court reversed: it held the MSA’s "except" clause incorporated 750 ILCS 5/502(f), so statutory modification is available upon a substantial change of circumstances; the case was remanded for a hearing on the merits of Michael’s modification claim.
Issues:
| Issue | Rita's Argument | Michael's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MSA precludes court-ordered statutory modification under 750 ILCS 5/502(f) | MSA makes maintenance non‑modifiable except by a written agreement; section 502 defers to the MSA, so no statutory modification | The MSA’s prefatory "Except as otherwise provided for in Section 502" preserves statutory modification under §502(f) if parties cannot agree in writing | The appellate court held the MSA’s "except" clause incorporated §502(f); statutory modification is available upon a substantial change of circumstances and remanded for a hearing |
| Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Michael’s modification motion without addressing substantial change of circumstances | Trial court treated agreement as non‑modifiable and therefore declined to consider substantial change | Michael alleged substantial adverse change in income from oil business requiring downward modification | Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for the trial court to consider whether Michael established a substantial change warranting modification |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Dynako, 2021 IL 126835 (Illinois Supreme Court) (reference to §502(f) can show intent to make maintenance nonmodifiable or, by contrast, preserve statutory modification depending on contract language)
- In re Marriage of Michaelson, 359 Ill. App. 3d 706 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (MSA language must be construed as a contract and read together)
- In re Marriage of Schweitzer, 289 Ill. App. 3d 425 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (parties may agree maintenance is nonmodifiable; such intent must be clearly manifested)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (Ill. 2009) (principles for contractual/statutory interpretation in family law context)
- Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospital, 186 Ill. 2d 104 (Ill. 1999) (standard for de novo review when interpreting contracts and statutes)