In re Marriage of Folley

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Folley, 2024 IL App (4th) 240083-U (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., Sept. 30, 2024) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Anne E.L. Folley. Respondent-Appellant: Gregory F. Folley. (This appeal follows an earlier appellate opinion: In re Marriage of Folley, 2021 IL App (3d) 180427 (Folley I).)

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court complied with the appellate mandate in Folley I to reexamine Greg’s modification petition in light of his demonstrated ability to pay maintenance.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in setting permanent maintenance at $14,000/month (reduced from the MSA amount of $20,000/month and from a prior trial-court ruling reducing it to $0).
3. Correction of a clerical error in the written judgment (scrivener’s error showing “$14,0000”).

- Holding/outcome
The Fourth District affirmed. The appellate court: (1) corrected the clerical error nunc pro tunc (Rule 366(a)(1)) to reflect $14,000/month; (2) held the trial court complied with the Folley I mandate; and (3) found no abuse of discretion in awarding $14,000/month and calculating arrearages accordingly.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Mandate compliance: Folley I required the trial court to “reexamine” its modification in light of Greg’s clear ability to pay and to calculate arrearages; it did not prescribe a fixed numeric result. The appellate court rejected Greg’s semantic argument that the remand required only “some portion” narrowly construed; rather, the remand left the trial court discretion to set a reasonable amount above $0, up to the original $20,000.
- Standard of review: Whether the trial court complied with the mandate is a question of law (de novo review); the amount of maintenance is reviewed for abuse of discretion (reversed only if arbitrary/unreasonable or against the manifest weight of the evidence).
- Facts on remand: No new evidence was presented; the trial court exercised its discretion and set maintenance at $14,000/month (a 30% reduction from $20,000), which the appellate court found within the bounds of reasonable discretion given the parties’ financial picture.
- Clerical correction: The court used Rule 366/ancillary authority to cure a typographical error in the written order (from “$14,0000” to “$14,000”).

- Practice implications
- Appellate mandates require reexamination, not numerically prescriptive outcomes; trial courts retain discretion to set amounts consistent with the mandate and record.
- Preserve new evidence for remand hearings if you seek a different result; absent new evidence, appellate remand may result in reweighing under the same record.
- Maintain careful drafting: clerical errors in monetary awards should be corrected promptly (Rule 366/nunc pro tunc).
- In maintenance-modification disputes, emphasize both current income and liquid assets/ability to pay; appellate courts will scrutinize findings of inability to pay where significant assets exist.