In re Marriage of Bartlett

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Bartlett, 2024 IL App (1st) 230624-U (1st Dist. Oct. 30, 2024) (Rule 23 non‑precedential). Counter‑petitioner/Appellant: Dennis M. Quinn. Counter‑respondent/Appellee: Lynne E. Bartlett.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether a former spouse’s voluntary retirement can constitute a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of permanent maintenance (addressed in prior appeal, Quinn I).
2. On remand, whether the trial court properly set monthly maintenance (including deviation from statutory guideline) under 750 ILCS 5/504(a) and 5/510(a‑5).
3. Whether Quinn was entitled to reimbursement for maintenance paid post‑retirement or otherwise to require repayment by Bartlett (credit/offset issues).

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. On remand the trial court permissibly deviated from the guideline (which produced $0) and set permanent maintenance at $807.78 per month (above guideline). The court also ordered that Quinn receive a credit for the maintenance he overpaid retroactive to his retirement; the parties were directed to compute the precise amount. Duration remained indefinite; each party bears their own fees.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court applied Sections 504 and 510, concluding that a guideline result of $0 did not foreclose an upward deviation in a permanent‑maintenance context. The court considered: parties’ ages and long marriage; earning capacity and work history (Quinn retired after a long legal career; Bartlett has significant medical disabilities and limited earning capacity despite professional credentials); income, assets, debts, and liquidity (stipulated asset totals and prior gifts); monthly expense disparities (Bartlett’s expenses consumed a larger share of combined monthly outlays); and retirement realities (mandatory IRA distributions/SS). Given those factors, the court found deviation appropriate to address inequity despite guideline calculations. On overpayment, the trial court recognized Quinn’s entitlement to a credit (rather than full immediate reimbursement), ordering computation but preserving prior offsets (e.g., Social Security-related credits).

- Practice implications
- After Quinn I, voluntary retirement can be a substantial change; counsel should document timing, motivation, earnings loss, gifts/transfers, and retirement planning.
- Even if guideline maintenance computes to zero, courts may deviate upward in permanent maintenance cases — emphasize health, expenses, earning capacity, and asset liquidity.
- Seek explicit rulings on credits/retroactivity and computation methodology when overpayments occur; courts may award credits rather than full reimbursement and preserve prior offsets.
- Preserve detailed financial exhibits and stipulations; litigate (or settle) treatment of SS, IRA RMDs, and inter‑spousal transfers.