Analysis of In re Marriage of Folley: A Landmark Case in Spousal Maintenance

Summary

In this appeal after remand, the Fourth District Appellate Court affirmed, as modified, a Peoria County trial court order setting Gregory Folley's permanent maintenance obligation at $14,000 per month. In an earlier appeal, the appellate court had vacated the trial court's reduction of maintenance to $0 and remanded. This time, the court held that the trial court complied with that mandate and did not abuse its discretion. The court also corrected a scrivener's error in the written order, which read "$14,0000," so that it reads "$14,000." The decision is a nonprecedential Rule 23 order.

In re Marriage of Anne E.L. Folley and Gregory F. Folley, 2024 IL App (4th) 240083-U, is a Rule 23 order of the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, filed September 30, 2024. Justice Doherty delivered the judgment, and Justices Harris and Steigmann concurred. The appeal came from the Circuit Court of Peoria County (No. 10D643, Judge Alicia N. Washington). The case concerns permanent maintenance after the dissolution of a marriage of nearly 28 years. Under Supreme Court Rule 23, the order is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Key Facts of the Case

The parties married in 1983 and had nine children. By agreement, Anne stayed home to care for the children while Gregory earned all of the marital income, eventually becoming a vice president at Caterpillar. The 2012 judgment dissolving their marriage incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA). Under the MSA, Gregory would pay Anne permanent maintenance of $20,000 per month, plus 25% of any future after-tax short-term incentive payments. In June 2017, Gregory was forced to retire early because of corporate restructuring, and he petitioned to modify his maintenance. The trial court found a substantial change in circumstances and reduced his obligation to $0. Anne appealed.

In the earlier appeal, In re Marriage of Folley, 2021 IL App (3d) 180427 (Folley I), the appellate court held that Gregory had a clear ability to pay maintenance in light of his approximately $12 million in assets. It held that reducing maintenance to $0 was an abuse of discretion. The court declined to reinstate the $20,000 figure. Instead, it vacated the judgment and remanded with directions for the trial court to reexamine the modification in light of Gregory's ability to pay and to calculate any arrearages.

Main Legal Question

On remand, the trial court heard no new evidence. Gregory asked for $3,528.23 per month and Anne asked for $16,000 per month. The court set maintenance at $14,000 per month beginning March 2018 and calculated arrearages on that amount. Gregory appealed, which raised two questions:

• whether the trial court complied with the mandate in Folley I; and
• whether the $14,000 monthly award was an abuse of discretion as excessive.

Court’s Reasoning

The mandate. Gregory argued that Folley I's reference to "some portion" of the original award required less than a large portion. The court rejected this reading. It explained that Folley I required "at least some portion" of the award, noted that Gregory was "arguably" able to pay the full amount, and intended the trial court to award a reasonable amount above $0, possibly as high as $20,000. The trial court therefore acted within the bounds of the remand.

Income shares. The court found Gregory's income-share figures flawed and not an apples-to-apples comparison. Corrected figures showed he was better off under the lower award.

Liquidating assets. The court rejected Gregory's argument that a payor need not liquidate assets absent special circumstances. It relied on the rule that a former spouse need not lower the marital standard of living as long as the payor has sufficient assets to meet both parties' needs.

The MSA. The court also rejected Gregory's argument that the MSA implicitly gave Anne about 30% of the parties' income. Once the trial court departed from the MSA at Gregory's request, the agreement became only one factor to consider.

The section 504(a) factors. The court found that many of the remaining factors favored Anne, including:

• her years raising the parties' nine children;
• her limited employability;
• the length of the marriage;
• Gregory's ability to return to work; and
• the tax consequences.

Excessiveness. The court found the award was not excessive. It pointed to In re Marriage of Nord, which upheld $17,000 per month in permanent maintenance. It also emphasized Anne's homemaker contributions to the parties' joint efforts during Gregory's career.

The appellate court used its power under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(1) to amend the written judgment order, striking "$14,0000" and inserting "$14,000" nunc pro tunc to August 2, 2023. It then affirmed the judgment as modified.

Implications for Future Disputes

The ruling in In re Marriage of Folley, a nonprecedential Rule 23 order, illustrates how one appellate panel reviewed a maintenance modification for a long-term marriage in which one spouse stayed home to raise the children while the other built a career. The court weighed the standard of living established during the marriage and the parties' assets, not just their postretirement incomes.

One key takeaway is the court's view on retirement. Despite Gregory's significant loss of income from his forced retirement, the court held that he retained the ability to pay maintenance by liquidating a portion of his assets. (750 ILCS 5/510) The order also shows the court reviewing the trial court's weighing of all the section 504(a) factors, including the payor's financial circumstances and the recipient spouse's contributions during the marriage.

On review after remand, the court also corrected the scrivener's error in the written order nunc pro tunc so that it conformed to the trial court's oral ruling of $14,000 per month.

Conclusion

The appellate court in In re Marriage of Folley held that the trial court on remand followed the mandate of Folley I. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing Gregory's $20,000 monthly obligation to $14,000 rather than a lower amount, and it affirmed the judgment as modified. Because the decision is a Rule 23 order, it is not precedent except as allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). It nonetheless shows how one court analyzed maintenance where the payor's retirement reduced his income but he still held substantial assets.

References

• In re Marriage of Folley, 2024 IL App (4th) 240083-U (Rule 23 order affirming $14,000/month on remand); earlier appeal: In re Marriage of Folley, 2021 IL App (3d) 180427.
• Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/504.

Full Opinion (PDF): Read the opinion on the Illinois Courts site

Related Articles

• Analysis of In re Marriage of Dahm-Schell: A Landmark Child Support Case

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, ISC2 CC, Google Cybersecurity Professional Certificate). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Request Conflict Check

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.