The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—because the Third District just confirmed what aggressive family law practitioners in Illinois have known for years: you cannot hide behind a retirement-account exemption when you owe six figures in maintenance arrearages. In re Marriage of Raine, 2026 IL App (3d) 250121, is a decisive appellate stamp on a strategy that high-net-worth obligors have tried to deploy for too long. And if you're on the wrong side of this ruling, your options just narrowed considerably.
The Setup: A Textbook Pattern of Evasion
The facts in Raine read like a masterclass in what not to do when you owe your ex-spouse a mountain of maintenance. Talmage Raine was ordered to pay $12,000 per month in maintenance following a 2009 dissolution judgment after nearly three decades of marriage. That figure was later reduced to $5,000 per month by agreed order in November 2013. And then he simply… stopped paying reliably.
The arrearages compounded. Successive agreed judgments documented the growing debt—$191,000 documented in 2018, eventually settling at over $126,000 outstanding by 2024, with an additional $96,752.50 in accrued statutory interest. That is not a rounding error. That is a deliberate pattern of nonpayment that the trial court recognized when it held Talmage in indirect civil contempt for willful nonpayment.
Here is where the strategy gets interesting—and where it collapsed. In January 2022, while these arrearages were accumulating, Talmage opened a variable annuity account with Jackson National Life Insurance Company and parked $137,381.68 in it. The implicit calculation is transparent: retirement assets enjoy broad exemption protections under , so if you move liquid assets into a qualifying account, they become untouchable. Or so the theory goes.
The trial court found no fraudulent intent in opening the annuity. That finding is important—and ultimately irrelevant to the outcome. Because the appellate court did not need to reach fraud. The statute did the work.
The Kill Shot: Section 15 of the Income Withholding for Support Act
The Third District's analysis is clean, direct, and devastating for obligors who think annuities and retirement vehicles are impenetrable shields. The court held that Section 15 of the Income Withholding for Support Act (750 ILCS 28/15) creates a clear statutory exception to the general retirement-asset exemption. That exception applies to both child support and maintenance obligations—including arrearages and accrued interest.
Read that again. Including arrearages and accrued interest.
This is not a judicial stretch. This is the plain language of the statute doing exactly what the legislature intended: ensuring that support obligations take priority over asset-protection maneuvers. The court affirmed the turnover order requiring the Jackson National Life annuity funds to be transferred directly to satisfy Cynthia Raine's judgment.
The doctrinal framework is straightforward:
- General Rule: Retirement assets—including annuities, IRAs, and qualified plans—are exempt from attachment, garnishment, and supplementary proceedings.
- The Exception That Swallows the Shield: Section 15 of the Income Withholding for Support Act carves out support obligations (maintenance and child support) from that exemption. When an obligor owes support arrearages, the exemption does not apply.
- The Mechanism: A third-party citation to discover assets, followed by an amended petition for turnover, is the procedural vehicle. Cynthia Raine served the citation on Jackson National Life directly and petitioned for turnover. The trial court granted it. The Third District affirmed.
No fraudulent transfer finding required. No piercing of any veil. Just a statute that says what it means.
Strategic Implications for Illinois Practitioners
If You Represent the Payee Spouse
This opinion is a weapon. Deploy it. If your client is owed substantial maintenance or child support arrearages and the obligor has assets sitting in annuities, IRAs, or other retirement vehicles, Raine confirms your path to recovery. The procedural sequence is well-established:
- File a petition for rule to show cause and establish the arrearage on the record.
- Obtain a finding of contempt where the nonpayment is willful.
- Serve third-party citations to discover assets on every financial institution where the obligor holds accounts—including insurance companies holding annuity contracts.
- File an amended petition for turnover, citing 750 ILCS 28/15 as the statutory basis for overriding any claimed exemption.
The trial court in Raine (Judge Leah D. Setzen, Du Page County, 18th Judicial Circuit) followed this exact sequence. The appellate court blessed it without reservation.
If You Represent the Obligor Spouse
Stop advising clients that moving assets into retirement vehicles will insulate them from support obligations. After Raine, that advice is not just wrong—it is malpractice-adjacent. The exemption has a statutory carve-out for support, and the Third District has now applied it with unmistakable clarity.
Your better strategy is to address the arrearage head-on: negotiate a structured paydown, seek a modification based on changed circumstances (Talmage suffered a career-ending stroke in November 2022, which is exactly the kind of material change that supports a modification petition), and demonstrate good faith. What you cannot do is park six figures in an annuity while your arrearages compound and expect the court to look the other way.
The Cyber-Discovery Angle That Most Practitioners Miss
Here is where the cross-disciplinary lens matters. In high-net-worth dissolutions, the annuity account is rarely the only asset the obligor has attempted to shield. When you serve third-party citations on financial institutions, you are pulling a thread. Follow it. Subpoena electronic records, account-opening documents, funding-source records, and correspondence. In the modern financial landscape, every transaction leaves a digital footprint—wire transfer records, online banking logs, email confirmations from insurance companies.
If your opposing party opened an annuity while arrearages were accruing, ask the obvious question: where else did money go? Cryptocurrency wallets, offshore accounts, transfers to family members or entities—these are discoverable, and digital forensics can surface them. The same obligor who thought an annuity was a safe harbor may have made other moves that are equally vulnerable. Cyber negligence in covering financial tracks is leverage in discovery, and aggressive practitioners use it.
The Broader Doctrinal Significance
Raine is significant because it resolves a tension that has lingered in Illinois practice. Obligors and their counsel have long pointed to the broad language of as a blanket shield for retirement assets. And in most creditor-debtor contexts, that shield holds. But family law is not most contexts. The legislature specifically carved out support obligations through the Income Withholding for Support Act, and the Third District has now confirmed that this carve-out applies to turnover proceedings targeting annuity accounts holding substantial funds.
The court's willingness to affirm the turnover order—even after the trial court found no fraudulent intent in opening the annuity—sends a clear message: intent is irrelevant when the statute provides an independent basis for the turnover. You do not need to prove the obligor opened the account to evade the obligation. You only need to prove the obligation exists, the arrearage is documented, and the statute permits the turnover. The rest is arithmetic.
Practical Takeaways
- Document everything. Successive agreed judgments documenting growing arrearages—as occurred in Raine—build an irrefutable record. Every time the obligor acknowledges the debt, the payee's position strengthens.
- Accrued interest is recoverable. The Third District affirmed that 750 ILCS 28/15 applies to arrearages and accrued interest. Do not leave interest on the table.
- Third-party citations are your best friend. Serve them broadly. Financial institutions are required to respond, and the information they produce often reveals assets the obligor failed to disclose.
- The exemption is not absolute. Any practitioner who tells a client that retirement assets are untouchable in the face of support arrearages is giving advice that Raine has now definitively contradicted at the appellate level.
- Timing matters. Talmage opened the annuity in January 2022 while arrearages were already substantial. Even without a fraud finding, the optics of that timing are devastating. Courts notice patterns.
The Bottom Line
If you are owed maintenance or child support arrearages in Illinois and your ex-spouse has assets in annuities or retirement accounts, In re Marriage of Raine just handed you the appellate authority to go get them. The statutory framework under 750 ILCS 28/15 overrides the general exemption, and the Third District has confirmed it applies to turnover proceedings—including accrued interest.
If you are the obligor, the window for voluntary compliance just got smaller and the consequences of evasion just got larger. The court is not going to let you starve your ex-spouse while your annuity compounds.
This is the kind of case that changes the calculus in every high-asset maintenance dispute in Illinois. If you are navigating arrearages—on either side—you need counsel who understands how to weaponize this ruling or defend against it. The opposition is already adjusting their strategy. You should be ahead of them.
Book a consultation now. The arrearage is accruing interest while you wait.