In re Marriage of Nadolski, 2025 IL App (3d) 240346-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Nadolski, 2025 IL App (3d) 240346-U - How This Helps Divorcing Clients: For recipient spouses, Nadolski demonstrates that Illinois courts will aggressively enforce true-up provisions and hold non-compliant payors in contempt when they fail to disclose income increases—meaning you don't have to accept a frozen maintenance amount while your ex quietly pockets raises. For payor spouses, this case serves as a critical warning that "forgetting" to notify your ex about income changes won't fly in court, and proactive compliance is far cheaper than contempt findings, arrearage calculations, and purge amounts.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and if you're dealing with a high-income spouse who thinks they can quietly pocket raises while your maintenance stays frozen, In re Marriage of Nadolski just handed you the blueprint to make them pay. Literally.

The Third District Appellate Court's October 2025 decision is a masterclass in what happens when one party treats their Marital Settlement Agreement like a suggestion rather than a binding contract. James Nadolski learned the hard way that "I forgot to mention my income increased" doesn't play well when your MSA explicitly requires immediate notification and recalculation. The contempt finding stuck. The arrearage calculation stuck. And now practitioners across Illinois have fresh ammunition for enforcement actions.

Let me break down exactly what this case means for your practice—and why your clients need to understand that true-up provisions have teeth.

The Core Dispute: When Does an Agreed Order Supersede an MSA?

Here's the setup: The Nadolskis' MSA contained a "true-up" provision requiring immediate notification, recalculation, and payment of increased maintenance whenever either party's base rate income rose. Standard high-income protection language. Then, in November 2018, the parties entered an agreed order that set a maintenance amount based on updated incomes at that time.

James's position? That agreed order wiped out the MSA's true-up requirements. New order, new game, old obligations gone.

The court's response? Not even close.

The appellate court applied straightforward contractual construction principles: the agreed order addressed only the parties' then-current base rates and set a contemporaneous maintenance amount. It did not expressly repeal or modify the MSA's true-up paragraph. Without explicit supersession language, the MSA's recalculation mechanics remained fully operative.

This is Contract Law 101, but you'd be stunned how many practitioners—and their clients—assume that any subsequent agreed order automatically overwrites prior MSA provisions. It doesn't. The court looks for express language of amendment or integration. If you don't include it, the MSA controls.

The Evidence That Buried Him

Teresa Nadolski didn't win on technicalities. She won on documentation.

The record showed James repeatedly failed to provide timely notice of raises. His income increases only came to light through tax returns—meaning Teresa was always playing catch-up, always calculating arrearages after the fact, always fighting for money that should have been paid months or years earlier.

Email exchanges and testimony demonstrated James actively resisted recalculations and disputed Teresa's calculations at every turn. The court found sufficient evidence of willful noncompliance to support indirect civil contempt. The arrearage figure Teresa presented—supported by admissions and documentation—was adopted by the trial court.

The purge amount was set at $30,000. That's not a slap on the wrist. That's a court saying: You knew what you were supposed to do, you chose not to do it, and now you pay.

Strategic Takeaways for Practitioners

1. Draft Agreed Orders Like They're Going to Be Litigated (Because They Will Be)

When entering agreed orders that alter support or incomes, you must explicitly state whether—and to what extent—the order supersedes, modifies, or preserves MSA true-up and recalculation clauses. Include integration language. Include amendment language. Leave nothing to interpretation.

If your client is the higher earner, you want that agreed order to function as a full reset—new baseline, old obligations extinguished. If your client is the recipient, you want the true-up mechanics preserved and the agreed order characterized as merely a point-in-time calculation.

The drafting controls the outcome. Nadolski proves it.

2. Build Your True-Up Provisions with Enforcement in Mind

Vague true-up language invites disputes. Specific language invites compliance—or contempt findings when compliance doesn't happen.

Your MSA should specify:

Notice methods: Certified mail, email with read receipt, or both. Define what constitutes valid notice.
Timing: Within 14 days of income change? Within 30 days? Upon receipt of first paycheck reflecting the increase? Pin it down.
Documentation requirements: Paystubs, offer letters, bonus notifications, stock vesting schedules. Require attachments.
Calculation methodology: Spell out the formula. Reference the statutory guidelines or your agreed deviation. Remove ambiguity.
Payment deadlines: When is the recalculated amount due? Retroactive to the date of increase? Prospective from notice? Both?


The more specific your provision, the easier your contempt motion becomes.

3. Preserve Everything

James Nadolski's downfall wasn't just that he failed to notify—it's that Teresa could prove he failed to notify. Emails. Tax returns. Testimony about what was disclosed when.

Your clients need to understand: every text, every email, every exchange of financial documents is potential evidence. If they're the payor, they need contemporaneous proof of notice—sent dates, delivery confirmations, attached documentation. If they're the recipient, they need to preserve every communication showing when information was (or wasn't) disclosed.

In 2025, this extends to digital forensics. If your opposing party claims they sent notice but your client never received it, metadata analysis can establish what was actually transmitted and when. If there's a pattern of "convenient" communication failures, that's evidence of willfulness.

4. Contempt Requires Willfulness—Build Your Record

Indirect civil contempt isn't automatic. You need to establish willful noncompliance with a clear court order or agreement. The Nadolski court found willfulness based on the pattern of conduct: repeated failures to notify, resistance to recalculations, disputes over calculations that were ultimately proven correct.

When preparing your enforcement motion, document the pattern. Show that your opposing party knew what was required (the MSA language), had the ability to comply (they received raises, they had access to their income information), and chose not to comply (no notice, no payment, active resistance).

One missed notification might be oversight. A pattern of missed notifications is contempt.

5. Consider Alternative Relief—But Don't Rely on It

Teresa Nadolski also sought modification of maintenance and post-secondary expense contributions under Sections 504 and 510 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. The court denied those requests, finding the existing maintenance framework adequate given the parties' incomes.

The lesson: don't put all your eggs in the modification basket. Enforcement of existing obligations is often cleaner and more certain than seeking modification. If your MSA already contains the mechanisms you need, use them. Modification is for when circumstances have genuinely changed—not for when your opposing party simply isn't complying with what they already agreed to do.

The Cyber-Law Intersection: Digital Discovery in High-Income Enforcement

Here's where modern practice meets traditional family law: high-income payors in 2025 receive compensation through increasingly complex channels. Base salary is just the beginning. Stock options, RSUs, deferred compensation, cryptocurrency, performance bonuses, carried interest—these income streams don't always show up on a W-2 until well after they vest or pay out.

If your opposing party is claiming they "didn't know" their income increased, or that they "forgot" to notify, their digital footprint tells a different story. Corporate email archives, brokerage account statements, HR portal access logs, even calendar entries showing meetings with compensation committees—all of this is discoverable.

When I see a high-income payor claiming ignorance about their own compensation, my first move is a comprehensive discovery request targeting their digital records. Not because I think they're necessarily lying—but because the documents don't lie. And when those documents show they logged into their brokerage account to check their vesting RSUs three days before they "forgot" to notify their ex-spouse, the contempt finding writes itself.

A Note on Precedential Value

In re Marriage of Nadolski is a Rule 23 order, meaning it's non-precedential. You cannot cite it as binding authority in Illinois courts.

But that doesn't mean it's useless. Rule 23 orders reflect how the appellate courts are actually analyzing these issues. They show you the reasoning patterns, the evidence that persuades, the arguments that fail. When you're drafting your motion or preparing for oral argument, Nadolski gives you a roadmap—even if you can't cite it directly.

Use it as guidance. Use it to anticipate how courts will view your facts. And use it to pressure opposing counsel in negotiations: "You know how the Third District handled this exact issue last year..."

The Bottom Line

High-income divorce doesn't end at the judgment. For many clients, the real battle is enforcement—making sure the carefully negotiated provisions actually get followed. In re Marriage of Nadolski confirms what experienced practitioners already know: courts will enforce true-up provisions aggressively when the evidence supports noncompliance.

If you're representing the recipient spouse, build your record meticulously. Document every failure to notify. Preserve every communication. Calculate your arrearages precisely. Then bring your contempt motion with confidence.

If you're representing the payor spouse, compliance isn't optional. Notify immediately. Document your notifications. Pay the recalculated amounts on time. Because the alternative—contempt findings, arrearage awards, purge amounts—is far more expensive than doing it right the first time.

The judge already knows when someone's playing games with income disclosure. Make sure your client is on the right side of that knowledge.



Facing a maintenance enforcement dispute or drafting high-stakes MSA provisions? The Steele Law team handles complex, high-net-worth Illinois divorce matters where the financial stakes demand precision and the opposition demands respect. Book your strategy consultation now—before your opposing party figures out what's coming.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

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.

Free Case Assessment

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.