In re Marriage of Bulatovic

In re Marriage of Bulatovic, 2024 IL App (1st) 220224‑U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Bulatovic, No. 1‑22‑0224 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., June 24, 2024) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Marija Bulatovic. Respondent‑Appellant: Marko Stojanovic.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review a trial‑court order denying reapportionment of guardian ad litem (GAL) fees.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying four post‑decree petitions by husband to modify or abate his maintenance and child‑support obligations (and the motion to reconsider).
- Whether orally‑stated maintenance terms (husband to pay rent as maintenance) and a later agreed order reforming the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) were binding and incorporated into the dissolution judgment despite inconsistencies in the written judgment.

3. Holding/outcome
- The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order concerning reapportionment of GAL fees and therefore did not decide that issue on appeal.
- The appellate court otherwise affirmed the trial court’s orders denying appellant’s petitions to modify/abate maintenance and child support and denying reconsideration.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: The GAL‑fee reapportionment order was nonfinal/interlocutory; because it was not a final appealable order, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review it in this appeal.
- Incorporation/waiver/reformation: The trial court had incorporated the parties’ oral agreement (husband would pay rent up to $1,200/month as maintenance for three years) into the dissolution judgment during the on‑the‑record hearing. Although the written judgment did not recite the rent‑as‑maintenance language, a subsequent agreed order (May 15, 2018) reformed the MSA to reflect the rent obligation. The husband made no contemporaneous objection in court to the oral statements, and the appellate court treated his failure to object and the agreed reformation as reinforcing enforceability of the rent‑as‑maintenance arrangement.
- Standard of review: Appellate court reviewed post‑decree modification/abatement rulings for abuse of discretion and found no reversible error given the record and applicable standards (no sufficient basis shown to relieve or modify the agreed obligations).

5. Practice implications
- Ensure the final written judgment fully and accurately memorializes all material oral agreements made on the record at the dissolution hearing — or promptly obtain an agreed amendment — to avoid waiver/ambiguity.
- If challenging allocation of GAL fees or other interlocutory orders, preserve jurisdictional routes (finalization, Rule 304 certification where applicable, or separate interlocutory appeal) before seeking appellate review.
- Post‑decree modification/abatement requests face an abuse‑of‑discretion standard; parties should document substantial change in circumstances and preserve objections at the original hearing to avoid waiver.