In re Marriage of Sowatzke

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Sowatzke - In In re Marriage of Sowatzke, the Illinois First District affirmed a maintenance increase and denied the payor credit for arrearage overpayments made before filing his petition, after he admitted to deliberately delaying his filing to avoid triggering his ex-wife's modification request and was caught altering pay stubs during discovery. A key legal point is the court's application of the Tollison exception, holding that credit for maintenance overpayments requires the delay to be involuntary and equitable—standards James failed to meet due to his calculated, bad-faith conduct.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and In re Marriage of Sowatzke just handed Illinois family law practitioners a masterclass in how strategic delay, document manipulation, and courtroom arrogance can obliterate a payor's position.

This First District ruling isn't merely another maintenance modification case. It's a cautionary tale about what happens when a high-earning spouse tries to game the system and gets caught. If you're advising clients on either side of a maintenance dispute, the tactical implications here are significant.

The Setup: A 31-Year Marriage and a Payor Who Got Too Clever

James and Kathryn Sowatzke dissolved their 31-year marriage in 2015. Kathryn had been the primary stay-at-home parent, later transitioning to part-time work at a high school. At dissolution, James reported income of $75,000 annually—though his average during the marriage exceeded $100,000. The marital settlement agreement established permanent maintenance of $1,500 per month plus arrearage payments.

Fast forward to the post-dissolution proceedings that spawned this appeal. James's income had climbed to $119,000 plus bonuses. Kathryn's had inched up to approximately $25,000. James filed to terminate the maintenance arrearage, Kathryn cross-petitioned to increase maintenance, and James subsequently moved to terminate maintenance entirely.

The trial court denied termination, granted Kathryn's increase, and credited James only for arrearage overpayments made after he filed his petition. The First District affirmed across the board.

The Fatal Admissions: Strategic Delay and Altered Documents

Here's where James's case collapsed under its own weight.

First: James admitted on the record that he knew about the arrearage overpayments but deliberately delayed filing his petition. His stated reason? He wanted to avoid triggering a maintenance increase petition from Kathryn. That's not strategic litigation—that's a confession of bad faith that the court was never going to reward.

Second: James altered pay stubs to conceal bonus and year-to-date income information during discovery. In any courtroom, credibility is currency. The moment you're caught manipulating financial documents, you've declared bankruptcy on that account.

The court's response was predictable and appropriate: James received credit only for overpayments made after he finally filed his petition. The Tollison exception—which permits credit for involuntary overpayments where equity demands—was distinguished because James's delay was neither involuntary nor equitable. It was calculated and self-serving.

The Income Question: When Post-Divorce Earnings Justify Modification

James attempted to deploy In re Marriage of Brunke for the proposition that increased post-divorce income alone cannot support a maintenance modification. The appellate court wasn't buying it.

The distinction matters: James's current income of $119,000-plus didn't represent some unexpected windfall or career transformation. It reflected his actual earning capacity during the marriage—the capacity that was artificially depressed at the time of dissolution when he reported only $75,000.

Under 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5), maintenance is modifiable upon a substantial change in circumstances. When a payor's current income aligns with or exceeds the marital standard of living, that alignment can constitute the requisite change—particularly when the original maintenance calculation was based on temporarily reduced earnings.

The court effectively held that you don't get to sandbag your income at dissolution and then cry foul when your actual earning capacity catches up with you.

Good Faith Efforts: What Recipients Actually Need to Demonstrate

James argued Kathryn hadn't made sufficient efforts toward self-sufficiency. The court disagreed, and the standard it applied should inform how you counsel maintenance recipients.

Kathryn wasn't required to pursue advanced degrees. She wasn't required to abandon stable employment with benefits in pursuit of higher-paying but less secure positions. Maintaining consistent employment with gradual income increases demonstrated the good faith the statute contemplates.

For recipients: document your employment efforts, your professional development, your benefit considerations. The court isn't demanding you become a different person with a different career. It's asking whether you're making reasonable, sustained efforts within your circumstances.

The Forfeiture: A Procedural Trap That Swallowed an Argument

James apparently believed the MSA's non-modification clause barred Kathryn's increase petition. That argument never made it into the appellate analysis—because James failed to raise it at trial.

Forfeiture is unforgiving. If you have a contractual argument, a statutory defense, or a constitutional challenge, you raise it below or you lose it. This isn't a technicality; it's fundamental appellate practice. James's counsel left a potentially viable argument on the table, and the First District declined to consider it.

Practical Implications for Illinois Practitioners

For payors:

• File promptly when arrearages are satisfied. Strategic delay may limit your recovery to post-petition amounts only.
• Never alter financial documents. The short-term concealment isn't worth the permanent credibility destruction.
• If your income was depressed at dissolution, anticipate that recovery to marital-era levels may support modification.

For recipients:

• Monitor payor income. When current earnings reflect or exceed the marital standard of living, you may have grounds for modification.
• Document your good faith efforts—employment maintenance, benefit considerations, reasonable professional development.
• File cross-petitions strategically. Kathryn's timing here was impeccable.

For both sides:

• Discovery matters. Subpoena employment records, tax returns, bonus documentation. The payor who alters documents is the payor who's hiding something.
• Preserve your arguments. Forfeiture is real and permanent.

The Cyber-Law Intersection: Digital Discovery as Leverage

James altered pay stubs. In 2024, that kind of manipulation leaves digital fingerprints—metadata, version histories, inconsistencies between employer records and produced documents. If you suspect document manipulation, forensic analysis of electronic files can expose alterations that visual review misses.

This is where family law and cybersecurity intersect. The spouse who thinks they can manipulate a PDF without detection is operating on outdated assumptions. Modern e-discovery tools can identify alterations, and the credibility damage from exposed manipulation often exceeds whatever the documents were meant to conceal.

The Precedential Limitation—And Why It Still Matters

This is a Rule 23 order, which means its precedential value is limited under Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1). You cannot cite it as binding authority.

But persuasive authority has value. The court's analysis of voluntary delay, the application of Brunke to marital-era income levels, and the treatment of document manipulation all provide guidance for how similar arguments may be received. When you're crafting strategy in a maintenance modification case, Sowatzke belongs in your research file.

The Bottom Line

James Sowatzke walked into court with a straightforward arrearage credit claim and walked out with increased maintenance obligations, no credit for years of overpayments, and a published opinion documenting his strategic delay and document manipulation.

That's what happens when you try to game the system in Cook County domestic relations court. The judges have seen it before. They're not impressed.

If you're facing a maintenance modification dispute—whether you're seeking modification, defending against one, or navigating arrearage issues—the time to develop your strategy is before you file, not after you've created a record of bad faith.

The consultation you schedule today shapes the outcome you get tomorrow. Book your strategy session now—before the other side does.

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.