In re MARRIAGE OF DANIEL CHAPA III, Petitioner-Appellee, and NANCY LEA CHAPA, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 2-21-0772
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
Opinion filed September 8, 2022
2022 IL App (2d) 210772
JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Schostok and Bridges concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Appeal from the
OPINION
¶ 1 In April 2012, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage of petitioner, Daniel Chapa III, and respondent, Nancy Lea Chapa. The judgment required that, after the sale of the marital residence and for a period of 48 months, Daniel would pay Nancy 50% of his income, as unallocated support, subject to review at the end of the term. The judgment also required Nancy to use her best efforts to become increasingly self-supporting during the 48-month term. In November 2015, thе marital residence was sold.
¶ 2 In September 2019, Nancy pro se petitioned to review the 48-month maintenance award and extend the term. She later retained counsel, amended her petition to extend, and also petitioned for an order requiring Daniel to contribute to her attorney fees. In October 2019, Daniel petitioned to terminate maintenance and included in that petition a request that Nancy pay his attorney fees. In January 2020,
¶ 3 Nancy appeals from this order, arguing the trial court erred by denying her petitions, because it failed to consider the criteria set forth in the
I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 We have previously characterized this case as “highly contentious.” In re Marriage of Chapa, 2013 IL App (2d) 120745-U, ¶ 4. That characterization remains apt. This is the sixth appeal in this case, and the appellate record spans more than 13,500 pages. However, we set forth only the facts necessary to dispose of this appeal.
A. The Parties’ Marriage and the Judgment Dissolving It
¶ 7 Daniel and Nanсy married in December 1989 and during the marriage had two children, both of whom are now emancipated. In February 2009, Daniel petitioned to dissolve the parties’ marriage. The case proceeded to trial late in 2011.
¶ 8 In April 2012, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage. The judgment awarded Nancy child support and maintenance in two phases. The first phase commenced upon the entry of the judgment, and its terms are not relevant at this juncture. The second phase, which consisted of unallocated support (as opposed to separate child support and maintenance awards, like in the first phase), commenced upon the sale of the marital residence in Hinsdаle. In the second phase, Daniel was required to pay to Nancy $3400 every two weeks, which was approximately 50% of his net base income. He was also required to pay her 50% of his net annual bonuses if and when he received them. The second phase continued for a fixed term of 48 months and contained an option to review maintenance at the end of the term:
“E. If respondent shall seek to review and[/]or to extend the period of maintenance beyond 48 months, then her request to do so shall be based upon the following considerations:
1. The respondent must file a petition seeking to extend the maintenance payments no later than 30 days subsequent to the final payment due hеreunder from [Daniel‘s] [‘]base pay.[‘]
2. The review shall be [‘]de novo[‘] pursuant to the criteria set forth in [s]ection 504 of the [
Act (750 ILCS 5/504 (West 2012)) ]. No proof of a [‘]substantial change in circumstances[‘] is required.3. During the period [Nancy] receives maintenance, she must use her best effort to become increasingly self[-]supporting.”
¶ 9 In November 2015, after 43 months of delays that were in large part caused by Nancy‘s refusal to comply with the terms of the judgment, the marital residence sold, thus commencing the second phase of the maintenance award.
B. Nancy‘s Petitions to Extend and for Interim and Prospective Fees and Daniel‘s Petition to Terminate Maintenance
¶ 11 In September 2019, Nancy pro se petitioned to review and extend her maintenance. She later retained counsel and amended her petition. In the amended petition,
¶ 12 In the meantime, in October 2019, Daniel petitioned to terminate Nancy‘s maintenance. He contended Nancy‘s failure to use her best efforts to become increasingly self-supporting, as required by the judgment, barred her from receiving maintenance.
¶ 13 In November 2019, Nancy petitioned for temporary maintenance. The trial court awarded her $4243 per month in temporary maintenance, to commence in January 2020.
¶ 14 On March 9, 2020, the hearing on the petitions commenced. It was continued on several occasions, due primarily to the COVID-19 pandemic, and transferred to a different judge (Judge Neal W. Cerne).
¶ 15 On December 9, 2021, the trial court entered a written order, denying Nancy‘s petition to extend maintenance (thereby granting Daniel‘s petition to terminate) and ordered that each party pay his or her own attorney fees. Additionally, the court terminated Nancy‘s temporary maintenance, effective January 1, 2021, and entered judgment against Nancy for “any overpayment.” In the written order, the court found the judge who entered the judgment (Judge James J. Konetski, retired) did not award Nancy permanent maintenance but, rather, found Nancy could rehabilitate herself and instead awarded reviewable maintenance. The court recited the terms of the judgment relating to maintenance review, emphasizing the requirement that Nancy use her best efforts to become increasingly self-supporting while omitting entirely the requirement that any review be de novo in accordance with the factors set forth in
¶ 16 This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
¶ 18 On appeal, Nancy contends the trial court erred when it denied her petitions to extend maintenance and for contribution to her attorney fees. Specifically, concerning her petition to extend, Nancy argues the court failed to consider any of the factors contained in
A. Compliance with Rule 341
¶ 20 Initially, we address each party‘s request that we strike the other‘s brief based on their failures to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Rule 341 governs the form and content of appellate briefs, and compliance with the rule is mandatory. In re Marriage of Reicher, 2021 IL App (2d) 200454, ¶ 30. “The failure to comply with the rules is not an inconsequential matter and may justify striking the brief and dismissing the appeal.” Id. “The striking of a party‘s brief and dismissal of the appeal, however, is a harsh sanction, which is ordinarily reserved for the most egregious failures to comply with the rules and those that hinder our review.” Id.
¶ 21 Daniel asks us to strike Nancy‘s brief because it (1) is devoid of coherent argument; (2) fails, in the argument sectiоn, to cite the record; and (3) improperly cites unpublished orders that were filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2021). Nancy asks us to strike Daniel‘s brief because (1) he has recited “a plethora of ‘facts’ ” that were “not in evidence in the hearings” at issue and are irrelevant, (2) his statement of facts “duplicates facts which were contained in Nancy‘s brief,” (3) he failed to cite the record in multiple places in his statement of facts, and (4) his brief fails to comply with the page-margin requirements, thus circumventing the page limits contained in the rule.
1. Nancy‘s Brief
¶ 23 Addressing Nancy‘s brief first, we agree Nancy violated Rule 341 by failing, in her argument, to cite the pages of the record on which she relies. Rule 341(h)(7) states that argument “shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Nancy‘s argument is almost entirely devoid of any reference to the record. And we disagree with her assertion that she was not required to cite the record in her argument because she did so in her statement of facts. Rule 341 plainly requires that a party cite the record both in his or her statement of facts and in his or her argument. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6), (7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).
¶ 24 We are troubled by Nancy‘s citation of several unpublished decisions—In re Marriage of Coates, 2020 IL App (2d) 190232-U, In re Marriage of Jablonski, 2019 IL App (2d) 180427-U, and In re Marriage of Ciszewski, 2014 IL App (1st) 130004-U—that were issued before January 1, 2021, and are nonprecedential and should not have been cited for any reason. Ill. S. Ct. R. 23(e) (eff. Jan. 1, 2021). And we are even more troubled by the fact she omitted the “-U” from the citations of Coates and Jablonski. To the extent that was an attempt to mislead this court as to the nonprecedential value of those decisions, we caution Nancy‘s counsel that any future attempts to do so will not be viewed with any leniency. In any event, we will simply disregard Nancy‘s citations of those decisions.
¶ 25 We disagree, however, with Daniel‘s assertion that Nancy‘s brief is devoid of coherent argument, such that she has forfeited her claims of error. Indeed, Nancy‘s brief is organized, and she has presented coherent arguments in support of each of her contentions that are otherwise
2. Daniel‘s Brief
¶ 27 We next address Daniel‘s brief. As Nancy points out, Daniel also failed to cite the record in support of several assertions of fact in his brief, which violates Rule 341. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6), (7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Daniel‘s failure in this regard, however, is relatively minor and does not warrant striking the brief.
¶ 28 We disagree with Nancy‘s assertion that Daniel violated Rule 341 by including his own statement of facts in his brief or by including facts of record that are allegedly not relevant to the issues presented in this appeal. Rule 341(h)(6) states that a party‘s statement of facts “shall cоntain the facts necessary to an understanding of the case.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Though Daniel has included facts that were not presented as evidence during the hearing at issue, we do not find his inclusion of those facts violates the rule. They are in the record and provide additional context to the parties’ dispute, and Daniel has used them to support his position both in the trial court and on appeal.
¶ 29 We likewise disagree that Daniel‘s inclusion of his own statement of the relevant facts violated the rule. Rule 341(i) provides that the appellee need not include a statement of facts in his or her brief unless the appellee deems the appellant‘s presentation of the facts unsatisfactory. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(i) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). The rule does not prohibit an appellee from including his or her own statement of facts but, rather, excuses the appellee from doing so if he or she finds the appellant‘s recitation of the facts satisfactory. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the contentious nature of this matter, Daniel apparently deemed Nancy‘s presentation of the facts unsatisfactory, and he included his own presentation. This does not violate the rule.
¶ 30 Nancy also asserts Daniel‘s brief fails to comply with Rule 341(a), which states, in part, “[m]argins must be at least 1½ inch on the left side and 1 inch on the other three sides.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(a) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Our review of Daniel‘s brief shows that he violated this requirement, as the left margin on his brief is only 1¼ inch. Daniel‘s brief was just short of 50 pages, which is the limit permitted by Rule 341(b)(1) (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(b)(1) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020)). Thus, it is likely that, had Daniel complied with the page-margin requirements, his brief would have exceeded the page limit.
¶ 31 We are profoundly concerned by Daniel‘s apparent attempt to circumvent the page limits in Rule 341(b). We note Rule 341(b)(2) permits a party to seek leave to file a brief in excess of the 50-page limit. Though such motions “are not favored” (Ill. S. Ct R. 341(b)(2) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020)), Daniel‘s attorneys did not ask for permission and instead narrowed the margin required by the rule. Even worse, his attorneys certified that the brief complied with the page limitations and page-margin requirements of Rule 341. Given his attorneys’ disregard for this aspect of Rule 341, we would be well within оur discretion to strike all or at least part of Daniel‘s brief. However, we decline to take that action here and instead warn Daniel‘s attorneys that any future attempts to circumvent the page limits contained in Rule 341(b) will result in the striking of the brief and may warrant additional sanctions under Illinois
B. Nancy‘s Petition to Extend Maintenance
¶ 33 Nancy first contends the trial court erred by denying her petition to extend maintenance. Specifically, she argues the court failed to review the original maintenance award de novo under
¶ 34 As we will explain below, we agree with Nancy in part. The record shows the trial court misconstrued the original judgment and considered Nancy‘s petition as if the award were solely rehabilitative and Nancy‘s using her best efforts to become increasingly self-supporting were a prerequisite to an extension. The judgment, however, provided a clear standard for the maintenance review: the court was required to conduct a de novo review under
1. Standard of Review
¶ 36 “Interpretation of provisions in a divorce decree are governed by the same rules pertaining to the construction of contracts.” In re Marriage of Kekstadt, 85 Ill. App. 3d 952, 954 (1980). Thus, to the extent our review requires us to construe the judgment, our review is de novo. Gallagher v. Lenart, 226 Ill. 2d 208, 219 (2007). And our “main objective *** is to give effect to the apparent intent of the [trial] court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kekstadt, 85 Ill. App. 3d at 954. However, we review for an abuse of discretion the ultimate decision to deny Nancy‘s petition. In re Marriage of Brunke, 2019 IL App (2d) 190201, ¶ 32. An abuse of discretion exists when, among other things, the trial court “applies an improper legal standard.” In re Marriage of Heasley, 2014 IL App (2d) 130937, ¶ 31.
2. The Original Maintenance Award Was Rehabilitative in Nature But Subject to a Limited Review
¶ 38 There are four common types of maintenance under the Act: permanent maintenance, rehabilitative maintenance for a fixed term, rehabilitative maintenance subject to review, and maintenance in gross. In re Marriage of Van Hoveln, 2018 IL App (4th) 180112, ¶ 30. When maintenance is reviewable, the scope of the review proceeding is defined by the trial court‘s order or the parties’ agreement. See Heasley, 2014 IL App (2d) 130937, ¶¶ 27-30. Thus, a maintenance award may be subject to a general review, in which case the court must apply the relevant factors set forth in
¶ 39 We conclude the original maintenance award was intended to be partially rehabilitative in nature, subject to a limited de novo review at the end of the 48-month term. The original maintenance award placed on Nancy an obligation to “use her best effort to become increasingly self[-]supporting.” This indicates the maintenance was intended to be rehabilitative, as such awards generally place on the recipient spouse an affirmative obligation to become financially independent. See id. ¶ 23. However, the judgment did nоt require Nancy to prove she had used her best efforts to become increasingly self-supporting before she could be awarded an extension of maintenance. Rather, it required the trial court, upon Nancy‘s timely petition, to conduct a de novo review “pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 504 of the [Act].” Thus, the maintenance was not fully rehabilitative in nature, and Nancy‘s efforts to become self-supporting were but one factor the trial court was to consider in determining whether an extension of maintenance was warranted. Essentially, the judgment directed the court to add Nancy‘s efforts to become self-supporting to the
¶ 40 We reiterate that the judgment provided for a limited, not general, review of the original maintenance. In a general maintenance review,
¶ 41 We note our conclusion is consistent with our decision in Nancy‘s first appeal. Addressing Nancy‘s challenge to the duration of the maintenance award, we found we did not yet know the duration of time during which Nancy would be receiving maintenance and found “[f]urther review on this sub-issue [was] premature.” Chapa, 2013 IL App (2d) 120745-U, ¶ 35. We noted, however, the judgment provided that the trial court would “re-evaluate Nancy‘s need for support upon her petition at the end of the term.” Id. Further, we noted, the court‘s decision would “be made anew based on the factors set forth in section 504 of the Act [citation], and, presumably, as mentionеd in the court‘s third point, a major factor will be the degree to which Nancy improved her ability to support herself.” Id.
¶ 42 On this point, we briefly address Nancy‘s argument that the trial court erred by classifying the maintenance as rehabilitative. In support, she notes this court previously characterized the maintenance as unallocated family support, not rehabilitative maintenance. We disagree that the maintenance was not at least in part rehabilitative, given that it required
3. The Trial Court Applied the Wrong Standard in Conducting the Review
¶ 44 We conclude the trial court applied the incorrect standard to Nancy‘s petition to extend and, therefore, abused its discretion in denying it. See Heasley, 2014 IL App (2d) 130937, ¶ 31 (the trial court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard). As noted, the judgment clearly defined the scope of the review proceeding: upon Nancy‘s timely petition, the court was required to conduct a de novo review under
¶ 45 The trial court‘s written order compels this conclusion. In the order, the court recited the terms of the judgment relating to maintenance review but omitted entirely any reference to the
¶ 46 We acknowledge that we have long held a trial court need not make express findings on or give equаl weight to each statutory factor when determining whether a maintenance award is warranted.
C. Nancy‘s Petition for Contribution
¶ 48 Nancy also contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying her petition for contribution to her attorney fees. She argues the court failed to consider any of the factors required under the Act‘s provisions relating to attorney fees. We agree.
1. Standard of Review
¶ 50 Whether to order a party to contribute to the other‘s attorney fees is a matter for the trial court‘s discretion, and this court will not disturb the trial court‘s decision absent an abuse of that discretion. In re Marriage of Heroy, 2017 IL 120205, ¶ 13. An abuse of discretion occurs when, among other things, the trial court “applies an improper legal standard.” Heasley, 2014 IL App (2d) 130937, ¶ 31.
2. Postjudgment Fees
¶ 52 Under
3. The Trial Court Applied the Wrong Standard to Nancy‘s Petition
¶ 54 Here, the judgment awarded maintenance to Nancy, and, thus, the trial court was required to consider the factors set forth in
¶ 55 Because the trial court did not explain the basis for its decision on Nancy‘s petition for contribution, we presume that the trial court relied on the same basis as it did to deny Nancy‘s petition to extend maintenance. While those findings may be appropriate considerations in this context, the Act‘s attorney-fee provisions clearly direct a trial court to consider all of the relevant factors. The record shows the court failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court applied an improper legal standard to Nancy‘s petition for contribution and, therefore, abused its discretion in denying it.
D. The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Terminating Nancy‘s Temporary Maintenance Retroactive to January 1, 2021
¶ 57 The trial court‘s December 9, 2021, order also terminated Nancy‘s temporary
¶ 58 Though Nancy does not squarely challenge that portion of the order, we nevertheless conclude the trial court abused its discretion by terminating the temporary maintenance retroactively and imposing on Nancy a money judgment. Temporary maintenance awards, including their retroactivity, are matters for the trial court‘s discretion. In re Marriage of Greenberg, 102 Ill. App. 3d 938, 941 (1981). Daniel never specifically requested a retroactive termination of Nancy‘s temporary maintenance, and the court never explained the basis for its decision. See In re Marriage of Gowdy, 352 Ill. App. 3d 301, 306 (2004) (the trial court is generally limited to granting relief sought in the pleadings); In re Marriage of Cantrell, 314 Ill. App. 3d 623, 628 (2000) (same). Thus, the court‘s order in this regard appears arbitrary, especially when the written order makes no mention of the parties’ financial circumstances (other than Nancy‘s failure to find gainful employment). Accordingly, we find the court‘s retroactive termination of Nancy‘s temporary maintenance was an abuse of discretion.
E. Daniel‘s Request for Fees in Relation to this Appeal
¶ 60 In the conclusion section of his brief, Daniel, without any argument, requests attorney fees for his defense of this appeal under
F. Proceedings on Remand
¶ 62 For the foregoing reasons, we have concluded all aspects of the trial court‘s December 9, 2021, order were an abuse of discretion. In this case, we find the proper course of action is to vacate the trial court‘s order in its entirety and remand this matter to the trial court to consider Nancy‘s petitions, consistent with this opinion. See Heasley, 2014 IL App (2d) 130937, ¶ 32. We note that, because we have vacated in its entirety the order at issue, the temporary maintenance order entered on January 14, 2020, is still in effect.
¶ 63 In the interest of judicial economy, we address two issues that we believe will arise on remand.
1. Section 510(a-5) Is Not Applicable to These Review Proceedings
¶ 65 First, we note that, in her brief, Nancy argued that, in reviewing her petition to extend, the trial court erred by failing to consider the factors set forth in
¶ 67 Sеcond, as Nancy points out, because the trial court did not consider
¶ 68 Currently, there is a split among the appellate districts as to whether the new maintenance guidelines should be applied to the review of a maintenance award that was entered before the effective date of the guidelines. Compare Brunke, 2019 IL App (2d) 190201, ¶¶ 50-58, with Kasprzyk, 2019 IL App (4th) 170838, ¶¶ 36-38.
¶ 69 In Brunke, we held that the new maintenance guidelines did not apply to the review of a 2012 maintenance award. Brunke, 2019 IL App (2d) 190201, ¶ 58. In doing so, we examined our prior decisions in In re Marriage of Carstens, 2018 IL App (2d) 170183, ¶ 29, and In re Marriage of Benink, 2018 IL App (2d) 170175, ¶ 29, where we held the new guidelines applied to modification prоceedings commenced after January 1, 2016. Brunke, 2019 IL App (2d) 190201, ¶ 52. We explained that, in Carstens and Benink, we relied on
¶ 70 We explained there is a critical distinction between review proceedings and modification proceedings:
“A review proceeding results from a court order that specifically provides for review of that order. [Citation.] Where there is no provision for review, a motion to reconsider maintеnance initiates a modification proceeding rather than a review proceeding. [Citation.] In a modification proceeding, maintenance will not be altered absent proof of a substantial change in circumstances. [Citation.] Proof of a change of circumstances is not required in a review proceeding.” Id. ¶ 51.
Further, we noted that this court had long recognized that ” ‘review proceedings and modification proceedings [were] separate and distinct mechanisms by which reconsideration of maintenance can occur.’ ” Id.
¶ 71 We also noted that the legislature, in
¶ 72 With this distinction in mind, we turned to the language of
¶ 73 Wе acknowledged that our colleagues in the Fourth District had reached a different conclusion in Kasprzyk, 2019 IL App (4th) 170838. There, the court held the guidelines applied in review proceedings. In reaching its conclusion, the court looked to
¶ 74 We respectfully disagree with the court‘s reasoning in Kasprzyk and continue to adhere to our holding in Brunke. As we explained in Brunke, the legislature has provided the authority for both review and modification proceedings and has set the parameters of the relief that may be awarded. Brunke, 2019 IL App (2d) 190201, ¶ 58 (citing Strukoff v. Strukoff, 76 Ill. 2d 53, 60 (1979)). We must apply the statute as written, so as not to render any word, clause, or sentence superfluous, and the legislature would not have distinguished between review and modification proceedings if thе distinction was not significant. Id. Accordingly, the trial court on remand should apply in its de novo review the version of
¶ 76 For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
¶ 77 Judgment vacated; cause remanded.
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County, No. 09-D-395; the Hon. Neal W. Cerne, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys for Appellant: Joseph P. O‘Brien, of Opal O‘Brien LLC, of Wheaton, for appellant.
Attorneys for Appellee: Lee A. Marinaccio and Jamie L. Ryan, of Botti Marinaccio, Ltd., of Oak Brook, for appellee.