Marriage of Kalebic, 2025 IL App (2d) 230272-U

Summary

Case Summary: Marriage of Kalebic, 2025 IL App (2d) 230272-U - A woman's years-long battle to garnish her ex-husband's Social Security benefits collapsed because her marital settlement agreement labeled payments as "property division" rather than "domestic support"—a drafting choice that locked her out of federal enforcement tools entirely. The Illinois appellate court's ruling in Marriage of Kalebic exposes how sloppy contract language and failure to preserve court transcripts can transform a valid judgment into an uncollectible piece of paper, while also highlighting how digital forensics and cryptocurrency tracing are becoming critical weapons when protected benefits shield an ex-spouse's visible income.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and your soon-to-be ex-spouse's legal team just learned an expensive lesson about the difference between what you call a payment and what that payment actually is under federal enforcement law.

The Second District just handed down Marriage of Kalebic, 2025 IL App (2d) 230272-U, and if you're navigating a high-asset divorce in Illinois, this case is required reading. Not because it breaks new ground—but because it exposes exactly how sloppy drafting and procedural negligence can obliterate your ability to collect what you're owed.

The Setup: When "Cash Payments" Aren't What They Sound Like

Charlene Kalebic (now Quint) spent years trying to enforce a judgment against her ex-husband Thomas. She wanted a turnover order directing the Social Security Administration to garnish his benefits. The collections court declined. She appealed. She lost.

The core problem? The Marital Settlement Agreement distinguished between two categories of obligations:


Article III "Maintenance"—non-modifiable monthly payments totaling $450,000, explicitly labeled as maintenance.
Article VIII "Cash Payments"—characterized in the MSA as a non-taxable property division under Section 503(e) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.


Charlene argued the "cash payments" were functionally maintenance—domestic support obligations that could be enforced against federal benefits. The appellate court disagreed. The MSA's own language, structure, and tax treatment made clear these were property-settlement obligations. And property-settlement obligations cannot be garnished from Social Security benefits.

The Federal Enforcement Wall You Need to Understand

Social Security benefits enjoy substantial protection from creditors. The exception? Domestic support obligations—alimony, maintenance, child support. If your judgment qualifies as a DSO, federal law permits garnishment. If it doesn't, you're locked out.

The Kalebic court examined the MSA's contractual labels, the explicit tax characterization, and the structural separation between maintenance and property provisions. The conclusion was unambiguous: the "cash payments" were property division, not support. No garnishment.

This distinction isn't academic. It's the difference between collecting and watching your judgment gather dust while your ex collects federal benefits untouched.

The Forfeiture Trap: How Procedural Failures Killed the Appeal

Charlene also argued the collections court should have calculated how much of the prior contempt judgment related to unpaid maintenance—the portion that could be enforced against Social Security. The appellate court refused to consider it.

Why? Forfeiture.

She failed to obtain a transcript of the contempt hearing. She failed to secure an allocation from the dissolution court before initiating collection proceedings. The appellate court had no record to review and no basis to reverse.

This is the procedural equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight and then complaining about the rules of engagement.

Strategic Takeaways for High-Net-Worth Divorce Negotiations

If you're negotiating or enforcing a divorce settlement in Illinois, Kalebic demands immediate attention to these issues:

1. Draft with Enforcement in Mind

Every MSA should include explicit, separate allocations between maintenance/support and property division. Don't rely on ambiguous labels. Don't assume a court will "figure it out" later. Specify dollar amounts, payment schedules, and enforcement remedies for each category independently.

If you want the ability to garnish federal benefits, the obligation must be clearly characterized as a domestic support obligation—in the agreement and in any subsequent court orders.

2. Secure Enforceable Support Orders Before Collection

A contempt judgment that mixes support and property obligations is a collection nightmare. Before initiating garnishment proceedings, move in the dissolution court to allocate the specific dollar amounts attributable to maintenance. Get a separate, enforceable order that identifies the DSO component.

The collections division is not the forum to litigate what your MSA meant. That determination belongs in the dissolution court, and it needs to happen before you're standing in front of a collections judge asking for a turnover order.

3. Preserve the Record—Every Time

Transcripts are not optional. If a hearing results in a contempt finding, a judgment, or any ruling you may need to enforce or appeal, order the transcript immediately. The absence of a transcript can—and will—result in forfeiture of appellate arguments.

This is basic litigation hygiene. The Kalebic appellant learned it the hard way.

4. Understand the Tax/Enforcement Tradeoff

Property divisions under Section 503(e) are non-taxable to the recipient. Maintenance is taxable to the recipient (under pre-2019 agreements) or non-deductible to the payor (under current law). The tax characterization you choose has enforcement consequences.

If you structure an obligation as property division to achieve a tax result, you may be sacrificing federal enforcement tools. This tradeoff must be analyzed at the drafting stage, not discovered during collection.

The Cyber-Legal Angle: Digital Evidence and Discovery Leverage

High-asset divorce litigation increasingly involves digital forensics, cryptocurrency tracing, and electronic discovery. When an opposing party claims inability to pay while federal benefits remain protected, the question becomes: what other assets exist?

Cyber negligence—failure to preserve electronic records, undisclosed digital accounts, cryptocurrency holdings that weren't properly disclosed during discovery—creates leverage. If your ex-spouse's digital footprint suggests hidden assets or income streams, that evidence can support motions for additional discovery, sanctions, or modification of support obligations.

The intersection of family law and technology isn't theoretical. It's where modern enforcement battles are won.

The Bottom Line

Kalebic isn't a case about a collections judge "abdicating" enforcement duties. It's a case about what happens when the drafting was sloppy, the characterization was ambiguous, and the procedural groundwork wasn't laid before collection proceedings began.

The appellate court didn't create new law. It applied existing principles to an MSA that said what it said—and to an appellant who failed to preserve the record she needed.

If you're negotiating a high-net-worth divorce in Illinois, your MSA needs to be drafted with enforcement as the primary consideration. If you're trying to collect on an existing judgment, you need to understand the federal limitations on garnishment and the procedural steps required to maximize your enforcement options.

The opposition is already making mistakes. The question is whether you're positioned to capitalize on them—or whether your own drafting and procedural choices are creating the same vulnerabilities.

Book a consultation now. The strategic advantages in your case aren't going to identify themselves.

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.