2022 IL App (1st) 210711
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Stefanie Scarp and Jeffrey Rahman divorced by judgment entered March 22, 2017, incorporating a February 27, 2017 marital settlement agreement (MSA).
- MSA provided Jeffrey would pay $2,550/month maintenance for 163 months (or until remarriage, cohabitation >6 months, or death) and child-support provisions until children reached majority.
- Section 14.11 of the MSA stated: except for terms concerning support, custody, or visitation of the minor children, the Agreement shall not be changed, modified or altered by any order of Court except by mutual consent (a catchall non‑modification clause). Section 7.4 noted maintenance was "predicated upon" the parties’ 2015 incomes; section 7.5 required exchange of tax returns.
- Jeffrey filed petitions (June and Dec 2020) seeking termination or modification of maintenance based on post‑divorce income changes (Stefanie earned more than Jeffrey in later years).
- After an evidentiary hearing on incomes, the trial court ruled the MSA’s catchall clause made maintenance nonmodifiable and denied Jeffrey’s petition; Jeffrey appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Scarp's Argument | Rahman's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MSA’s catchall clause (¶14.11) is sufficient to render maintenance nonmodifiable under amended 750 ILCS 5/502(f) | The catchall clause unambiguously makes the entire MSA nonmodifiable (except child support/custody/visitation), so maintenance is nonmodifiable | The post‑2016 §502(f) requires an express agreement that maintenance is nonmodifiable in "amount, duration, or both" (or explicit reference to maintenance); the catchall is insufficient; "support" should include maintenance; other provisions show contrary intent | Court held the catchall clause is a clear, unambiguous agreement making maintenance nonmodifiable; §502(f) does not mandate specific phrasing referencing "amount, duration, or both"; affirmed trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Schweitzer, 289 Ill. App. 3d 425 (1997) (upheld a clause that the MSA "shall not be modifiable" as sufficient to make maintenance nonmodifiable)
- In re Marriage of Mateja, 183 Ill. App. 3d 759 (1989) (enforced a contractual provision stating the agreement was nonmodifiable, preserving maintenance as nonmodifiable except where expressly stated)
- In re Marriage of Dynako, 2021 IL 126835 (2021) (Ill. S. Ct.) (held §502(f) does not require particular wording; parties may make maintenance entirely nonmodifiable or select aspects to make nonmodifiable)
- Thompson v. Gordon, 241 Ill. 2d 428 (2011) (contract interpretation principle: courts avoid readings that render contractual provisions meaningless)