Mullen

In re Marriage of Mullen

1. Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Mullen, 2019 IL App (3d) 180303‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Apr. 11, 2019) (unpublished Rule 23 order). - Petitioner‑Appellant: Patrick Mullen. Respondent‑Appellee: Patricia Mullen. 2. Key legal issues - Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for respondent on petitioner’s petition to reduce maintenance without considering the mandatory statutory factors. - Whether petitioner raised a genuine issue of material fact that his circumstances had substantially changed under 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5), triggering a review using the factors in §504(a). 3. Holding/outcome - Reversed and remanded. The appellate court held the trial court erred by failing to apply the §504/§510 factors when deciding the summary judgment motion and that petitioner raised genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. 4. Significant legal reasoning (concise) - The Act requires that a maintenance modification proceeding be decided only upon a showing of a “substantial change in circumstances,” and “in all such proceedings … the court shall consider the applicable factors set forth in subsection (a) of Section 504 and the following factors” (750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5)). The appellate court treated “shall” as mandatory. - Where a respondent moves for summary judgment asserting no substantial change, the trial court must assess whether the record (pleadings, affidavits, tax returns, etc.) and the inferences therefrom present a genuine factual dispute about a substantial change—using the §504/§510 factors—before entering judgment under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1005. - Here, petitioner produced tax returns and evidence that his total compensation fell dramatically (2014 total comp ≈ $529,000; 2015 $314,000; 2016 $287,000; post‑2017 terminated from Pepsi and now earns primarily a $185,000 base with reduced/no bonuses). The trial court improperly focused only on base salary and declined to consider the statutory factors; reasonable people could draw different inferences from the record. 5. Practice implications - At the pleadings/SJ stage in maintenance modification matters, courts must apply §504/§510 factors; do not assume trial court will treat base salary as dispositive. - For plaintiffs seeking modification: develop a clear record of total compensation (tax returns, W‑2s, bonus/stock statements), termination letters, and mitigation/rehiring efforts; for defendants opposing modification: produce evidence refuting a substantial reduction in overall resources. - Draft marital settlement agreements to specify how maintenance was calculated (base vs. total comp) to reduce later ambiguity. - Use affidavits and documentary proof early—summary judgment can be defeated if reasonable inferences from financial records create genuine disputes.