In re Marriage of Tompkins

Overview

The Third District affirmed the dismissal of respondent Amy Itoku's motion to modify maintenance, holding that she failed to plead facts constituting a substantial change in circumstances under 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5) . The court found that the husband's change from self-employment to salaried work and his increased income were already contemplated by the parties' detailed marital settlement agreement, and the wife's alleged lifestyle reductions and increased medical expenses were not pled as creating any unmet financial need.

Key Facts

Parties divorced in 2019 after a 1996 marriage; both children now emancipated.

The MSA established a detailed five-page maintenance calculation: $6,500/month "draw" with an annual "true-up" based on a percentage of husband's income across defined ranges, with 0% of income exceeding $4 million .

Income sources expressly included W-2 wages, 1099-MISC, and Schedule K-1 — contemplating a potential shift from self-employment to salaried work.

Husband transitioned from self-employed portfolio manager to salaried employee, earning more than four times his prior income.

Wife alleged she voluntarily reduced lifestyle expenses (streaming, vacations, health club, vehicles) due to income uncertainty and incurred ~$10,000 in additional annual medical expenses.

Wife sought the MSA maximum of $478,000 annually regardless of the chart methodology, plus simplification of the calculation process.

Procedural History

Du Page County Circuit Court (18th Judicial Circuit), Judge Leah D. Setzen presiding. Husband filed a combined §2-615/§2-619 motion to dismiss. The court granted dismissal with prejudice under §2-615 and issued a conflicting oral/written ruling on §2-619. Wife appealed to the Third District Appellate Court (Appeal No. 3-25-0482). Multiple prior motions to modify had also been dismissed at the pleading stage.

Holdings

Section 2-615 dismissal affirmed (de novo review): Wife's motion failed to plead facts establishing a substantial change in circumstances because (a) husband's employment change and income increase were expressly contemplated by the MSA, (b) voluntary lifestyle reductions and ~$10,000 in medical expenses were not pled as creating unmet need or financial hardship, and (c) husband's remarriage did not alter the agreed-upon income cap.

The court declined to reach the §2-619 issue, finding the oral and written orders conflicting and the §2-615 dismissal independently dispositive. See Rogalla v. Christie Clinic, P.C. .

Legal Principles

750 ILCS 5/510(a-5): Maintenance may be modified "only upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances" — meaning a change in the recipient's needs or the payor's ability to pay. In re Marriage of Shen , 2015 IL App (1st) 130733.

Changes expressly contemplated by an MSA's methodology cannot later serve as the basis for a substantial-change-in-circumstances claim.

Not all changes in circumstance are "substantial"; the movant must plead facts showing the change affects actual need or ability to pay. In re Marriage of Bernay , 2017 IL App (2d) 160583.

When oral and written orders conflict, the oral pronouncement controls . In re Tr. O. , 362 Ill. App. 3d 860.

Practical Implications

Draft MSAs with foresight: Detailed income-range charts and multi-source income definitions can insulate maintenance provisions from later modification by demonstrating the parties contemplated future changes.

Plead unmet need specifically: A motion to modify must allege that changed circumstances created a financial hardship or inability to meet needs — not merely that circumstances changed. Voluntary spending reductions are insufficient without allegations of necessity.

Income caps are enforceable barriers: An agreed cap on income used for maintenance calculations can defeat modification claims even when the payor's income substantially increases.

Counterargument: A movant might survive dismissal by pleading facts showing a truly unforeseeable change (e.g., a new income type not covered by the MSA) or that increased medical expenses actually exceed available maintenance, creating demonstrable hardship.

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order — it is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). The court's discussion of the §2-619 income-cap issue is dicta , as the court expressly declined to resolve it. The holding is confined to the sufficiency of pleadings under §2-615 and does not address whether these facts, if proven, could satisfy the substantial-change standard at an evidentiary hearing.