In re Marriage of Sowatzke

Overview

This appeal arises from post-dissolution proceedings where James Sowatzke challenged the trial court's handling of maintenance arrearage overpayments and its decision to increase rather than terminate his maintenance obligation. The First District affirmed all rulings, finding no abuse of discretion in crediting James only for overpayments made after filing his petition, granting Kathryn's petition to increase maintenance based on James's substantially higher income, and denying James's petition to terminate maintenance.

Key Facts

• 31-year marriage; Kathryn was primarily a stay-at-home parent, later working part-time at a high school
• At divorce (2015): James earned $75,000/year (average during marriage was $100,000); Kathryn earned approximately $21,000/year
• MSA provided for permanent maintenance of $1,500/month plus arrearage payments
• James's current salary: $119,000 plus bonuses; Kathryn's current salary: approximately $25,000
• James admitted he knew about arrearage overpayments but delayed filing to avoid triggering a maintenance increase petition
• James altered pay stubs to conceal bonus and year-to-date income information

Procedural History

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Domestic Relations Division (Case No. 13 D3 30710), Judge Rossana P. Fernandez presiding. James filed a petition to terminate maintenance arrearage (2022), Kathryn cross-petitioned to increase maintenance, and James subsequently filed a petition to terminate maintenance. After trial, the court denied termination, granted the increase, and credited James only for post-petition overpayments.

Holdings

1. Maintenance arrearage credit: No abuse of discretion in limiting credit to overpayments made after filing the petition. Standard of review: Abuse of discretion.
2. Maintenance increase: No abuse of discretion in finding James's increased income (from $75,000 to $119,000) constituted a substantial change in circumstances under 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5). Standard of review: Abuse of discretion.
3. Denial of termination: No abuse of discretion where Kathryn made good-faith efforts to maintain employment and secure benefits. Standard of review: Abuse of discretion.

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5): Maintenance modifiable only upon showing substantial change in circumstances
• 750 ILCS 5/504(a): Factors for maintenance determination
• In re Marriage of Tollison (1991): Exception allowing credit for involuntary overpayments where equity demands and no hardship results—distinguished here because James's delay was voluntary and strategic
• In re Marriage of Brunke (2019): Increased post-divorce income alone insufficient for modification—distinguished because James's current income matched his average marital income of $100,000+
• Court clarified that increased income can support modification when it reflects the standard of living during the marriage

Practical Implications

• Arrearage overpayments: Payors should promptly petition to terminate completed arrearages; strategic delay may limit recovery to post-petition amounts
• Income increases: When payor's current income reflects marital-era earning capacity, it may support modification even if lower at dissolution
• Good faith efforts: Recipients need not pursue advanced degrees or abandon stable employment with benefits; maintaining employment with gradual increases demonstrates good faith
• Discovery: Altering financial documents damages credibility and may influence discretionary rulings
• Counterargument: Distinguish Brunke by showing current income exceeds marital standard of living

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order with limited precedential value under Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1). The court's analysis of voluntary delay in seeking arrearage credit and the application of Brunke to marital-era income levels constitutes persuasive but non-binding guidance. James's argument that the MSA's non-modification clause barred any increase was forfeited for failure to raise it below.