In Re Marriage of Koenig, 969 N.E.2d 462

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Koenig, 969 N.E.2d 462, 360 Ill. Dec. 652 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2012). Petitioner-Appellant: Joyce P. Koenig. Respondent-Appellee: James E. Koenig.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a post-decree petition seeking contribution for a child's college and postgraduate expenses can recover expenses that accrued before filing the petition, when the original marital settlement agreement (incorporated into the decree) obligates the parents to pay such educational expenses but does not specify a formula, percentage, or fixed amounts.
- How In re Marriage of Petersen (and related Spircoff) applies where a decree either (a) expressly reserves contribution issues under section 513 of the IMDMA, or (b) instead assigns responsibility for educational expenses in the settlement agreement.

3. Holding / outcome
- The Second District reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the husband and remanded. It held Petersen is limited to decrees that expressly reserve college-expense contribution under section 513. Where the settlement agreement affirmatively obligates both parents to pay higher-education expenses, Petersen's bar on retroactive recovery does not automatically apply.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Section 513 permits courts to order educational support beyond majority; orders under §513 are modifiable and §510 governs modifications, limiting recovery to installments accruing after a modification petition. In Petersen, the decree expressly reserved the issue under §513 so a later allocation petition was treated as a modification under §510 and precluded recovery for pre-petition installments.
- By contrast here Article VII of the parties' settlement agreement (incorporated into the decree) expressly required both parents to pay for university/graduate education “based on their respective financial abilities,” with conditions and termination rules. The appellate court found this to be an affirmative contractual obligation in the decree (not merely a§513 reservation), so the petitioner was not barred, as a matter of law, from seeking contribution for prior expenditures. The court relied on Spircoff (First Dist.) as supportive authority distinguishing Petersen where the agreement imposed a contractual duty.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Draft settlement provisions with precision: if parties want an enforceable obligation (and to preserve claims for pre-petition expenses), state an explicit duty to pay and, preferably, a formula/percentages or dispute-resolution mechanism. Avoid ambiguous “reserve” language or an express referral “pursuant to §513” if you intend to preserve retroactive enforcement.
- If defending against retro recovery, include explicit reservation under §513 or language signaling future court allocation. Consider early petitions for allocation before large expenses accrue. Preserve documentary evidence of notice/objections and communications about school choice and payment.
- Counsel should analyze whether a college clause reads as property (contractual) or support (modifiable) when litigating retrospective claims.