In re Marriage of Osseck, 2021 IL App (2d) 200268

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Osseck, 2021 IL App (2d) 200268 - Here is a two-sentence summary of the article: The Illinois Second District Appellate Court's decision in In re Marriage of Osseck reaffirmed that family law practitioners must demonstrate substantial change and properly analyze statutory factors when seeking or defending maintenance modification, and that the trial court's failure to do so can result in an unfavorable appellate outcome. The case emphasizes the importance of building a strong documentary foundation, including providing evidence and analysis of income changes and other relevant factors, as well as preserving discovery records to avoid potential appeals issues.

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

When In re Marriage of Osseck landed in the Second District Appellate Court, it sent a clear message to every family law practitioner in Illinois: if you're seeking—or fighting—a maintenance modification, your documentary game better be airtight, and your trial court better show its work. The appellate court didn't just affirm or reverse. It did both. And that surgical precision tells you everything about where this battlefield is heading.

The Strategic Landscape: What Actually Happened

Steven Osseck's employer restructured compensation company-wide after a sale. His all-commission structure converted to a $250,000 base salary with performance-based quarterly and annual bonuses, bridge payments scheduled to phase out, and an overall compensation cap. His earnings declined measurably in late 2019, with 2020 projections demonstrably reduced.

The trial court found a substantial change in circumstances and modified maintenance. Toni Osseck appealed, arguing the order wasn't final and that Steven failed to prove his case.

The Second District's response was methodical and instructive: the order was final and appealable, the substantial change finding was supported by evidence, but the modified award itself had to go back because the trial court failed to adequately analyze the statutory factors under 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5) and 5/504(a).

Translation: you can win the battle and still lose the war if you don't force the court to document its reasoning.

The Finality Question: Your Appeal Window Is Open

Toni's counsel argued the modification order wasn't appealable—that it was somehow temporary or subject to future review. The appellate court rejected this cleanly. When an order materially alters the parties' substantive rights, it's final and appealable. Period.

This matters for high-net-worth practitioners because modification orders in complex cases often feel provisional. They're not. The moment that order changes your client's monthly obligation or entitlement, the clock starts running. Miss your appeal window, and you're living with that number regardless of how flawed the underlying analysis was.

Proving Substantial Change: The Documentary Imperative

Steven's team understood something fundamental: testimony without documentation is just storytelling. They brought the employer's compensation plan documents, pay charts, sales figures, and realistic forecasts. The appellate court specifically noted this evidentiary foundation when affirming the substantial change finding.

Contrast this with the losing approach: walking into court with vague assertions about "reduced income" and expecting a judge to take your client's word for it. In high-income cases—especially where compensation includes bonuses, equity, deferred payments, or performance incentives—the documentary trail is everything.

For the opposing side, the attack vector is equally clear: challenge speculative projections, highlight asset growth or alternative resources, and demand granular detail on every component of compensation. Bridge payments that "phase out" need documentation showing the phase-out schedule. Bonus structures need historical performance data. Caps need to be tested against actual earning patterns.

The Statutory Factor Failure: Where the Trial Court Lost

Here's where Osseck delivers its most actionable lesson. The trial court found a substantial change—correctly, according to the appellate court—but then failed to adequately apply or explain its analysis under the statutory factors. The appellate court vacated the modified award and remanded specifically because the trial court didn't make explicit findings addressing each factor.

Those factors under 750 ILCS 5/504(a) include:


Each party's income and property
Each party's needs
Each party's present and future earning capacity
Any impairment of earning capacity due to domestic duties or career sacrifice
Duration of the marriage
Standard of living established during the marriage
Tax consequences
Contributions to the other spouse's education or career
Any valid agreement between the parties
Age, health, and employment of both parties
Sources of income, including disability and retirement
All sources of public and private income


The modification statute at 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5) adds its own layer of required analysis. When the trial court skips or glosses over these factors, it hands the opposing party a gift-wrapped appellate issue.

The Practice Imperative: Force the Court's Hand

Whether you're seeking or opposing modification, your job is to make the trial court address every factor explicitly. Draft proposed findings of fact. Submit post-trial briefs that walk through each statutory element with pinpoint citations to the evidence. If the court's ruling is thin on analysis, file a motion to reconsider that specifically identifies the missing factor-by-factor consideration.

This isn't academic. Osseck demonstrates that appellate courts will vacate otherwise supportable rulings when the statutory framework isn't visibly applied. That means your opponent's win isn't secure until the court's written reasoning passes muster.

The Tech Angle: Compensation Complexity as Discovery Battlefield

Modern high-income compensation structures—RSUs, phantom equity, performance bonuses, deferred compensation, carried interest—create documentation trails that live in digital systems. When your opposing party claims income reduction due to "restructuring," your discovery should target:


Employment agreements and amendments
Compensation plan documents and summary plan descriptions
Internal communications regarding compensation changes
Historical payment records from payroll systems
Equity management platform data
Tax returns and K-1s showing all income sources


The failure to preserve or produce these records creates its own leverage. Spoliation arguments, adverse inference requests, and credibility attacks all flow from incomplete disclosure. In the digital age, claiming ignorance about your own compensation structure is a losing position.

Variable Income: The Percentage-Based Solution

The appellate court's discussion implicitly raises a question that sophisticated practitioners should already be asking: when income is highly variable, is a fixed-dollar maintenance award even appropriate?

Percentage-of-income formulas can provide built-in responsiveness to compensation fluctuations, reducing the need for repeated modification litigation. But Osseck reminds us that even these creative solutions require the trial court to analyze the statutory factors before adoption. You don't get to skip the analysis just because your proposed structure seems elegant.

The Strategic Takeaway

Osseck isn't just a case about maintenance modification. It's a roadmap for how appellate courts evaluate trial court work product in complex financial cases. The message is clear: prove your substantial change with documents, force the court to articulate its factor-by-factor analysis, and preserve your appellate issues by making the record bulletproof.

Your opposition may think they've won at the trial level. They haven't won until the appellate court says they have. And if the trial court's reasoning is thin, that victory is built on sand.

If you're facing a maintenance modification dispute—whether seeking reduction or defending against one—the time to build your documentary foundation is now. The time to ensure proper statutory analysis is before the court rules, not after. And the time to consult with counsel who understands how these cases actually get won and lost is before your opponent gains an advantage you can't recover.

Book your confidential strategy session today. Your financial future shouldn't depend on whether a trial court remembered to show its work.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, CEH, ISC2). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Consultation

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.