In Re Marriage of Doermer, 955 N.E.2d 1225

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Doermer, 955 N.E.2d 1225 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist., 2d Div. Aug. 16, 2011).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Richard D. Doermer. Respondent/Appellant: Kathleen Doermer.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a petition to extend/modify maintenance can proceed when the marital settlement agreement (MSA) contained an express non‑modification/termination clause and the parties received "unallocated" payments (combined maintenance and child support) and the child later emancipated.
- Which precedent governs: the pre‑Blum line of cases (e.g., Semonchik) treating unallocated support as always modifiable, or the Illinois Supreme Court’s Blum v. Koster (2009) holding on enforceability of nonmodification clauses.

3. Holding/outcome
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of respondent’s (Richard’s) motion to dismiss Kathleen’s petition for extension of maintenance. The nonmodification termination provision in the MSA was enforceable and barred Kathleen’s petition.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court reviewed IMDMA provisions (750 ILCS 5/502, 504(a), 510(a‑5)). Section 502(b)/(f) allows parties to contractually bind the court on agreement terms (except child support/custody), and permits express limitations on modification for non‑child terms. Section 510(a‑5) permits modification only on a substantial change of circumstances.
- The court relied on Blum v. Koster (Ill. 2009) to conclude that parties may validly contract for nonmodifiable maintenance and for events that terminate maintenance rights. Because the MSA expressly provided termination events (including a fixed period and conditions tied to the child), the petition seeking extension after the child’s emancipation was barred.
- The court distinguished Semonchik and its progeny (which had treated unallocated awards as subject to modification) as not controlling in light of Blum and the statutory framework permitting enforceable nonmodification clauses for maintenance.

5. Practice implications
- Drafting: When negotiating and drafting MSAs, be explicit about (a) whether payments are allocated or unallocated, (b) whether maintenance is modifiable and under what circumstances, and (c) precise termination events (dates, remarriage, cohabitation, child emancipation).
- Litigation strategy: A clear nonmodification/termination clause can be dispositive; use 2‑619/2‑619.1 motions where affirmative matter (agreement language) defeats a modification petition. Conversely, challenge terms on grounds of unconscionability or ambiguity if there is room.
- Advising clients: Post‑Blum, clients can bind themselves to nonmodifiable maintenance; counsel should advise on future risks (loss of ability to seek extension) and consider reserve language if future modification might be desired.
- Procedural note: Appellate review of such dismissal is de novo; assess whether the agreement language and statutory exceptions (child support) are implicated before filing modification petitions.