Pierce

In re Marriage of Hort

- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Hort, 2022 IL App (1st) 200360‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 25, 2022) (Rule 23 order, not precedent). Petitioner‑Appellant: Tim Hort. Respondent‑Appellee: Kimberly Hort. - Key legal issues 1) How to construe a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that provided “unallocated support” for a fixed term and a separate clause stating the spouse “waives the right to claim any future maintenance” after that term; 2) Whether the temporary “unallocated support” payments included maintenance (so the payer should receive credit) and whether the non‑modification/waiver clause bars later maintenance awards; and 3) Whether appellate review was foreclosed by the appellant’s failure to provide a report of proceedings. - Holding / outcome The appellate court vacated the trial court’s January 27, 2020 order that awarded additional maintenance to Kimberly. It held the MSA unambiguously prevented additional maintenance after the unallocated support term and that the unallocated payments included maintenance — so Tim was entitled to credit through the termination date (Nov. 15, 2019). The cause was remanded with directions to enter an order consistent with those findings. Justice Pierce dissented. - Significant legal reasoning (compact) The court reviewed the MSA as a contract and applied de novo construction principles (Blum v. Koster). Section 3.4 explicitly reserved the maintenance issue during the 2‑year‑8‑month unallocated period and then stated Kimberly “agrees to waive the right to claim any future maintenance” and that the waiver was “not subject to modification” (citing IMDMA §502(f) principles and authority like Kozloff and Dynako). Section 3.1 separately authorized potential child support after the unallocated period but did not include maintenance; the omission was treated as intentional. The court also found the earlier temporary order and the structure/amounts supported the conclusion that the unallocated payments encompassed both child support and maintenance (so credit was due). The absence of a transcript did not preclude review because the dispute turned on the written agreement (legal question), not factual findings. - Practice implications for family law attorneys - Draft MSAs with explicit allocation: if payments are “unallocated,” specify whether and to what extent they include maintenance and child support, how credits apply, and what happens at termination. - If parties intend a non‑modifiable maintenance waiver, include clear, unambiguous non‑modification language and be aware courts will enforce it. - If a client seeks modification, file before any termination event contemplated by the MSA. - Preserve the record (report/transcript) even when issues appear purely legal; absence can complicate appeals. - Anticipate appellate courts treating omissions (e.g., failing to address post‑term maintenance) as intentional; be explicit if a future right is to be preserved.