In re Marriage of Conklin, 2025 IL App (3d) 240330-U

Published: 2/5/2026 • 10 min read
By Jonathan D. Steele
In re Marriage of Conklin, 2025 IL App (3d) 240330-U

What should you know about in re marriage of conklin, 2025 il app (3d) 240330-u?

Quick Answer: Case Summary: In re Marriage of Conklin, 2025 IL App (3d) 240330-U - ## Summary This article analyzes the Illinois appellate case *In re Marriage of Conklin*, which addresses spousal maintenance modification disputes, particularly when a paying spouse experiences significant income increases from stock options. **The key legal point is that under Illinois law, a "substantial change in circumstances" required for maintenance modification cannot be established if the income source was foreseeable and contemplated at the time of the original agreement**—the court found that Edward Conklin's stock option windfalls were known assets he had previously exercised, making his increased payments a consequence of his deal rather than grounds for modification.

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Conklin, 2025 IL App (3d) 240330-U - ## Summary This article analyzes the Illinois appellate case In re Marriage of Conklin, which addresses spousal maintenance modification disputes, particularly when a paying spouse experiences significant income increases from stock options. The key legal point is that under Illinois law, a "substantial change in circumstances" required for maintenance modification cannot be established if the income source was foreseeable and contemplated at the time of the original agreement—the court found that Edward Conklin's stock option windfalls were known assets he had previously exercised, making his increased payments a consequence of his deal rather than grounds for modification.

Average Total Cost Range: $5,000 - $75,000+ (Illinois, 2025)

Note: Your actual costs depend on case complexity, county, attorney rates, and whether your ex contests the modification.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot. They just don't know it yet.

If you're the high-income spouse in an Illinois spousal maintenance modification dispute, pay attention. Or maybe you're the recipient spouse. Your ex's stock options just exploded into a seven-figure windfall. Either way, the Third District just handed down a roadmap you need to understand.

In re Marriage of Conklin isn't binding precedent. It's a Rule 23 order. But it's a masterclass in how Illinois courts analyze "substantial change in circumstances." Especially when the money was always there, hiding in plain sight.

Let me break down what this case means for your strategy. For your alimony obligations. For your leverage at the negotiating table.

Court Filing Fees

Fee Waiver: Available if income below 125% of federal poverty level (735 ILCS 5/5-105)

The Setup: A Percentage Formula Meets a Stock Option Windfall

Edward and Carolyn Conklin divorced in March 2018. Their spousal support formula was elegant. Simple. Base salary plus 30% of gross income exceeding that base. No cap. No ceiling. No escape hatch.

Then Edward's McDonald's stock options started printing money. Options he held before the settlement. His income spiked dramatically in 2021. That uncapped 30% maintenance payment became a number that made his accountant wince.

Edward filed to modify or terminate maintenance. His argument was straightforward. This income explosion is a "substantial change in circumstances" under Illinois law. The trial court disagreed. The Third District affirmed.

Here's the kill shot: Edward knew about those stock options. He'd exercised them before. The court found he contemplated this exact scenario when he signed.

Attorney Fees

Retainer: $3,500 - $15,000 (varies by firm and case complexity)

Hourly Rates in Illinois:

Average Hours by Case Type:

The Legal Architecture: Foreseeability as a Shield

Illinois maintenance modification requires proving a "substantial change in circumstances." But Conklin reinforced a critical limitation. If you knew about it when you signed, it's not a "change." It's a consequence of your original agreement.

Edward's legal team pushed hard on amended Section 510(a-5). This addresses foreseeability in modification proceedings. The court declined to apply it retroactively. The 2018 order predated the amendment. So did the 2020 petition.

But even without the statutory hook, the court reached the same result. The trial court's finding that Edward contemplated his stock option income was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. His own history of exercising those options proved the point.

The appellate court was careful. It wasn't creating a categorical rule. Income increases can support modification even with uncapped formulas. But not when the payor walked in with eyes wide open.

Expert Witness Fees (If Applicable)

Strategic Implications: What This Means for High-Net-Worth Cases

For Maintenance Payors: Your Settlement Language Is Your Prison

If you're the high-earning spouse negotiating maintenance, understand this. Every asset you hold becomes ammunition. Every compensation structure. Every option grant in your brokerage account. All of it supports a foreseeability argument in future litigation.

The Conklin court essentially told Edward: you knew what you had. You knew what it could become. You agreed to share 30% of the upside. That's not a change in circumstances. That's the deal you made.

Draft your agreement accordingly. Define "income" with surgical precision. Address stock options, RSUs, deferred compensation, and carried interest explicitly. Want to exclude post-dissolution exercises? Say so in writing. Want a cap? Negotiate one. Want a true-up mechanism? Build it in.

Silence is not your friend. Ambiguity is your opponent's leverage.

For Maintenance Recipients: Document Everything, Concede Nothing

Carolyn Conklin won because the record supported two findings. First, Edward contemplated this income when agreeing to support. Second, her needs hadn't materially changed.

If you're the recipient spouse, build that record from day one. Document your marital standard of living. Track your expenses. Maintain evidence of your reliance on maintenance. When your ex claims "substantial change," you need ammunition. Show that nothing changed for you. Show that whatever changed for them was entirely foreseeable.

Additional Costs

For Both Sides: Timing Matters More Than You Think

The court's refusal to apply amended Section 510(a-5) retroactively is crucial. Statutory timing can be outcome-determinative. When was your order entered? When was the petition filed? Which version of the statute governs?

These aren't academic questions. They're the difference between winning and explaining to your client why their seven-figure exposure just became permanent.

The Tech-Law Intersection: Discovery in Modern Cases

Here's where my practice areas converge. This keeps opposing counsel awake at night.

Edward's stock exercises weren't hidden. They showed up on tax returns. In brokerage statements. In corporate filings. But in modern high-net-worth cases, the digital trail runs deeper. Compensation committee communications. Internal equity tracking platforms. Vesting schedules buried in HR portals. Email threads discussing anticipated liquidity events.

If you're litigating a Conklin-style dispute, your e-discovery strategy needs to capture this data. If you're defending against modification, understand what your digital footprint reveals. What did you know at the time of the original agreement?

And if opposing counsel was sloppy with cybersecurity? If they commingled devices? Used unsecured communications? Failed to preserve data? That negligence becomes leverage. Preservation obligations attach when litigation is reasonably anticipated. Spoliation has consequences.

How to Reduce Costs

  1. Organize financial documents yourself: Create chronological files of income records, tax returns, and stock exercises (saves 10-20 attorney hours = $2,750-$9,000)
  2. Communicate efficiently: Batch questions in one email instead of multiple calls
  3. Consider limited scope representation: Hire attorney for critical tasks only (drafting, court appearances)
  4. Prioritize issues: Focus on what matters most financially—don't litigate every detail
  5. Settle when reasonable: Trial costs 3-5x more than settlement; appeals add another $15,000-$50,000

The Practical Playbook: Drafting Agreements to Avoid the Conklin Trap

Whether you're negotiating a new agreement or advising on modification exposure, here's the framework:

Define income exhaustively. Base salary. Bonuses. Commissions. Stock options (exercised and unexercised). RSUs. Phantom equity. Partnership distributions. Carried interest. Deferred compensation. Signing bonuses. Retention payments. Severance. If it has value, name it.

Address timing explicitly. When are stock options "income"? At grant? At vesting? At exercise? At sale? The answer matters enormously. Illinois courts will hold you to whatever your agreement says. Or implies through silence.

Include worked examples. Attach a schedule showing how the formula applies to hypothetical scenarios. Include large option exercises. This eliminates ambiguity. It demonstrates mutual understanding.

Consider caps, floors, and true-up mechanisms. An uncapped percentage sounds generous until it isn't. A floor protects the recipient. A cap protects the payor. A true-up smooths volatility. Negotiate the structure that reflects the actual deal.

State foreseeability expressly. If certain income sources are or aren't contemplated for modification purposes, say so. "The parties acknowledge that Respondent holds unvested stock options as of this date and that future exercises are contemplated within this calculation." That sentence is worth more than a thousand hours of post-judgment litigation.

Payment Options

Hidden Costs to Budget For