2019 IL App (2d) 180771-U
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Richard and Stephanie Watson married in 2003; Richard filed for dissolution in 2011 and a judgment was entered in 2012, with maintenance reserved due to Stephanie’s mental-health and substance issues.
- In 2014 Stephanie petitioned for maintenance; the court found her destitute and awarded $4,000/month for 36 months (reviewable), based on Richard’s substantial income.
- In 2017 Stephanie sought to extend and increase maintenance, alleging severe PTSD, major depression, panic attacks, multiple suicide attempts, ongoing psychiatric treatment, use of psychotropic meds and medical marijuana, and inability to obtain/maintain employment; she had not worked since 2014.
- At the 2018 two-day hearing Stephanie testified erratically; the court admitted a 2017 treating psychiatrist letter and other exhibits over some objections; Richard testified to very high income and had previously sought an order of protection.
- The trial court found Stephanie’s mental illness rendered her unable to work, set maintenance at $6,250/month for two years, and warned that at any future review Stephanie must show job-search efforts or proof that mental illness prevents work (including competent medical and vocational evidence).
- Richard appealed alleging multiple errors but preserved only two appellate arguments: (1) the court erred in finding Stephanie unemployable, and (2) the court abused its discretion in extending maintenance; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Richard) | Defendant's Argument (Stephanie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in finding Stephanie unable to work due to mental illness | Stephanie failed to show she was unable to obtain employment and had an obligation to seek work | Record contains ample evidence (testimony, treating physician letter) showing she is unemployable because of mental illness | Court’s finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; affirmed |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in extending/increasing maintenance | Extension was improper because Richard already paid guideline amounts and Stephanie made no employment efforts | Statute permits extension when a spouse is unemployable; evidence shows continued need and Richard’s high income | No abuse of discretion; court properly considered statutory factors and reasonably extended maintenance |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Cantrell, 314 Ill. App. 3d 623 (Ill. App. 2000) (maintenance orders may impose affirmative duty to seek employment when so stated)
- In re Marriage of McGory, 185 Ill. App. 3d 517 (Ill. App. 1989) (maintenance conditioned on full-time education/employability requires compliance)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (Ill. 2009) (scope of general review permits reconsideration of maintenance using statutory factors)
- In re Marriage of Schneider, 214 Ill. 2d 152 (Ill. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for domestic-relations rulings)
- Chicago Inv. Corp. v. Dolins, 107 Ill. 2d 120 (Ill. 1985) (appellate courts defer to trial-court factfindings unless manifestly erroneous)
- In re Marriage of Samardzija, 365 Ill. App. 3d 702 (Ill. App. 2006) (permanent maintenance appropriate when a spouse is unemployable)
- In re Marriage of Stam, 260 Ill. App. 3d 754 (Ill. App. 1994) (affirming extension where record showed little likelihood of self-sufficiency)