In re Marriage of Nadolski

Case & Citation

In re Marriage of James Nadolski and Teresa Nadolski
2025 IL App (3d) 240346‑U (Order filed Oct. 27, 2025). App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist.; Appeal No. 3‑24‑0346; Cir. Ct. No. 15‑D‑1351. Filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 — nonprecedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).

Panel

Judges: Justice Bertani (delivered judgment); Presiding Justice Brennan and Justice Holdridge (concurred). Trial judge: Hon. James F. McCluskey (Du Page County).

Holding & Disposition

Affirmed. The appellate court held a subsequent agreed order did not abrogate the Marital Settlement Agreement’s (MSA) automatic recalculation (“true‑up”) provision. The circuit court properly found James in indirect civil contempt for failing to recalculate and timely pay increased maintenance and affirmed arrears of $90,216 (purge set at $30,000; monthly maintenance modified below).

Background & Procedural History

- Dissolution judgment (Oct. 5, 2016) incorporated the MSA (22‑year marriage; three children). At dissolution parties’ anticipated base incomes were James ~$96,000 (self‑employed then) and Teresa ~$65,468. - After income increases for James, parties entered an agreed order (Nov. 20, 2018, and a Sept. 18, 2018 resolution payment of $20,000) that altered some disclosure timelines. James later moved to modify maintenance; Teresa sought enforcement and a rule to show cause for contempt (June 21, 2018; May 24, 2023 petition).

MSA & Agreed Order — Key Terms

- MSA Article III required immediate notice of any base‑income increase and immediate recalculation of maintenance using an agreed formula (capped so payee’s gross plus maintenance does not exceed 40% of combined gross). Teresa’s maintenance was otherwise permanent absent death, remarriage, or cohabitation. Annual base‑rate recalculations as of Dec. 31; tax/W‑2 exchange by April 15 per MSA. - The agreed order modified disclosure deadlines (e.g., notice within 7 days of an increase; documents within 14 days or by May 1) and expressly stated maintenance remained modifiable under 750 ILCS 5/510.

Facts, Hearing Findings, and Trial Rulings

- James became Director of Engineering Development at Command Alkon with a $205,000 base and bonuses; the court found multiple raises/bonuses (2019–2022) were not timely disclosed. Email exchanges showed James both using and disputing the true‑up formula and invoking a “40% rule.” He paid varying monthly amounts (claimed $1,931 agreed amount; submitted lower recalculations of $1,808 then $1,916) but did not perform the MSA’s required true‑ups after income increases. - The circuit court (Jan. 16, 2024 initial rule; Apr. 30, 2024 contempt hearing) concluded the agreed order changed certain disclosure timelines but did not negate the MSA’s true‑up mechanism. After a credibility assessment (court found James not credible), the court: (1) adjudged James in indirect civil contempt for willful noncompliance, (2) adopted Teresa’s arrearage calculation of $90,216, (3) set a $30,000 purge, and (4) modified monthly maintenance to $4,160 under statutory guidelines.

Legal Standards & Reasoning

- Contract/settlement interpretation is de novo; courts seek parties’ intent from unambiguous text. A later inconsistent modification can rescind prior terms, but neither party pointed to express agreed‑order language that conflicted with the MSA’s immediate true‑up requirement. The court harmonized the documents and declined to read Section 510 as supplanting an express calculation formula. - Indirect civil contempt requires proof of a court order and willful disobedience. Once petitioner makes a prima facie showing, the alleged contemnor must show non‑willfulness or a valid excuse. The trial court’s factual and credibility findings (burden shifting, late delivery of tax/W‑2s, damaging emails, lack of corroborating exhibits for James’s claimed notices) supported willfulness and were reviewed deferentially on appeal (manifest‑weight/abuse‑of‑discretion standards).

Appeal & Court’s Conclusion

- James appealed, arguing the agreed order superseded the MSA’s true‑up provisions, the contempt finding was erroneous, and the arrearage calculation was wrong. The appellate court rejected those arguments, found no ambiguity or conflict that would rescind the true‑up obligation, upheld the contempt determination and arrearage calculation, and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.

Outcome

Judgment of the Circuit Court of Du Page County affirmed. James adjudged in indirect civil contempt, arrears of $90,216 adopted, purge $30,000, and monthly maintenance adjustments upheld.