In re: Marriage of Leifke

Overview

This case addresses modification of indefinite maintenance where the recipient spouse failed to seek employment. The Third District reversed the trial court's conversion of indefinite maintenance to term maintenance, holding that while the recipient's failure to seek employment (combined with increased minimum wage) constituted a substantial change in circumstances, terminating maintenance was an abuse of discretion where both courts found she could never achieve the marital standard of living.

Key Facts

• Marriage lasted approximately 11 years (1998-2009); parties divorced in Germany
• German appellate court (2019) awarded indefinite maintenance of $4,003.82/month, finding Mai could never maintain marital standard of living even with "considerable efforts"
• Mai had no college degree, no meaningful marketable skills, and was employable only at minimum wage level
• Mai made no effort to obtain employment since 2019 order (except briefly to qualify for apartment rental)
• Mai relocated to California where minimum wage ($15.50/hour) was nearly double the $8.25/hour imputed in 2019
• Eckhard's income increased substantially (from ~$389,000 in 2017 to over $1.9 million in 2020)
• Eckhard had paid $531,901.82 in maintenance over 14+ years

Procedural History

German court entered divorce judgment (2013), affirmed on appeal (2019) with indefinite maintenance. Eckhard registered foreign judgment in Du Page County Circuit Court and filed petition to terminate/reduce maintenance (2020). After vacating an earlier default order, trial court granted modification converting indefinite maintenance to term maintenance ending March 2026. Mai appealed to Third District Appellate Court.

Holdings

1. Change in circumstances finding affirmed (manifest weight standard): Mai's failure to seek employment combined with significantly increased California minimum wage constituted substantial change in circumstances
2. Modification to term maintenance reversed (abuse of discretion standard): Converting indefinite to term maintenance was unreasonable where both courts found Mai could never achieve marital standard of living regardless of employment efforts

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5): Maintenance may be modified upon substantial change in circumstances
• In re Marriage of Dunseth: Indefinite maintenance appropriate where recipient employable only at income considerably lower than marital standard; recipient has good-faith obligation to seek self-sufficiency
• In re Marriage of Cheger: Self-sufficiency goal must be balanced against realistic likelihood of achieving reasonable approximation of marital standard
• In re Marriage of Brent: Lack of good-faith effort toward economic independence may constitute substantial change in circumstances
• In re Marriage of Walker: Recipient should not be required to lower marital standard of living as long as payor has sufficient assets
• Key clarification: Failure to seek employment can justify modification (e.g., imputing higher income) but not termination where recipient cannot achieve marital standard regardless of efforts

Practical Implications

• For payors seeking termination: Must show recipient can actually achieve marital standard through employment—mere failure to work is insufficient for termination if recipient lacks capacity to reach that standard
• For recipients: Document all job search efforts; failure to seek employment creates vulnerability to modification even if not termination
• Relocation matters: Moving to higher minimum wage jurisdiction may justify recalculating imputed income
• Appropriate remedy: When recipient fails to seek employment, proper remedy is imputing income at current rates and reducing maintenance—not termination
• Distinguish: Cases where recipient has marketable skills that could achieve marital standard (termination may be appropriate) versus cases like this where only minimum wage employment is possible

Limitations/Caveats

• Rule 23 Order: Not precedent except in limited circumstances under Rule 23(e)(1)
• Unique procedural posture: German court's specific findings (minimum wage capability, indefinite maintenance) significantly constrained modification options—court acknowledged this "significantly limits the factual scenarios" for termination
• Dicta: Court's suggestion that modification could account for higher minimum wage and "any other relevant factors" provides guidance but specific calculations left to remand
• Payor's ability to pay undisputed: Outcome might differ if payor demonstrated inability to continue payments