In re Marriage of Wojcik
128 N.E.3d 957
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Sandra and Michael Wojcik divorced after a ~30-year marriage; their marital settlement agreement gave petitioner substantial assets to Sandra and awarded Michael certain property and stock.
- The agreement required Michael to pay $13,500/month in "unallocated family support" for 60 months (covering child support and alimony), and expressly made that obligation "reviewable."
- The enumerated termination events (death, Sandra remarriage, cohabitation) did not occur. Michael paid the 60 months, the child reached majority, and Sandra filed to set/extend maintenance soon after the 60-month period ended.
- Michael moved to dismiss, arguing his obligation had ended; the trial court denied dismissal, held a trial, and awarded Sandra indefinite ("permanent") maintenance of $5,700/month plus $239,400 retroactive maintenance and prejudgment interest.
- The appellate court affirmed the modification and award of maintenance but reversed the award of prejudgment interest on the retroactive maintenance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to hear Sandra's petition to extend maintenance after the 60-month term lapsed | Wojcik: Agreement made the 60-month unallocated support "reviewable," so court retains authority to modify/extend | Michael: Once he completed the 60-month payment, obligation was satisfied and court lacked authority to extend | Held: Agreement expressly made support "reviewable" and contained no automatic termination; court properly reviewed and could extend maintenance. |
| Whether indefinite (permanent) maintenance was proper | Wojcik: She remains unable to maintain marital standard of living despite rehabilitation and imputed income; 30-year marriage and earning disparity justify indefinite maintenance | Michael: Sandra was rehabilitated and capable of self-support; court should not award continued maintenance or should reduce amount | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; facts (length of marriage, income disparity, imputed income, reasonable rehabilitation) support indefinite maintenance of $5,700/month. |
| Proper imputation of income and calculation of maintenance amount | Wojcik: Trial court reasonably imputed teacher-level income (~$46,000) and considered assets/expenses | Michael: Imputed income too low; failed to account for raises, passive income, and other earning potential | Held: Imputation to $46,000 and resulting award were reasonable; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether prejudgment interest was recoverable on retroactive maintenance awarded from petition filing to judgment | Wojcik: Not argued successfully | Michael: Interest not warranted because obligation did not "become due and remain unpaid" until court entered judgment; he reasonably litigated issue | Held: Reversed prejudgment interest; retroactive maintenance did not become due (or unpaid) until court ordered it, and Michael raised a good-faith defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Rodriguez, 359 Ill. App. 3d 307 (Ill. App. 2005) (lapse of original time-limited maintenance does not necessarily bar later petition to extend where reviewability or reservation exists)
- In re Marriage of Brent, 263 Ill. App. 3d 916 (Ill. App. 1994) (party intent to preclude modification must be clearly manifested in agreement)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (Ill. 2009) (unallocated support can represent both child support and maintenance; court may extend maintenance portion)
- In re Marriage of Drury, 317 Ill. App. 3d 201 (Ill. App. 2000) (indefinite maintenance appropriate where long marriage and large disparity in earning potential)
- In re Marriage of Donovan, 361 Ill. App. 3d 1059 (Ill. App. 2005) (trial court maintenance determinations are presumed correct)
- In re Marriage of Heroy, 385 Ill. App. 3d 640 (Ill. App. 2008) (review or setting of maintenance reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Rice v. Rice, 173 Ill. App. 3d 1098 (Ill. App. 1988) (distinguishes agreements that contain no review/reservation language; no automatic right to extension when agreement expressly terminates maintenance)