In re Marriage of Andrew, 2023 IL App (1st) 221039

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Andrew, 2023 IL App (1st) 221039 (1st Dist., June 16, 2023). Petitioner‑Appellant: Benjamin Andrew; Respondent‑Appellee: Jacqueline Andrew.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether a former spouse can seek to “invalidate” a marriage years after dissolution on grounds of lack of capacity/duress arising from alleged historical sexual abuse and domination.
2. Whether a unilateral “therapeutic breakthrough” (mental/psychological revelation) can constitute a “substantial change in circumstances” justifying termination of maintenance where the marital settlement agreement (MSA) declares maintenance non‑modifiable under 750 ILCS 5/502(f).
3. Procedural vehicle: whether the attack on the MSA/judgment may proceed as a direct action (petition to invalidate) or requires a collateral attack under section 2‑1401.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court: dismissal of (a) the petition to invalidate the marriage and (b) the motion to terminate maintenance; the appellate court also affirmed an adverse evidentiary ruling (trial court record summarized).

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Petition to invalidate: dismissal under 735 ILCS 5/2‑619(a)(4) and (a)(9). The dissolution judgment was a final adjudication that the parties were validly married and that the MSA was entered freely and voluntarily; res judicata and the fact that no marriage exists post‑dissolution barred a belated collateral direct attack seeking to “invalidate” the marriage. The court emphasized you cannot invalidate a marriage that has already been dissolved in a direct petition after final judgment.
- Motion to terminate maintenance: dismissed under 735 ILCS 5/2‑615. The MSA expressly made maintenance non‑modifiable under section 502(f) except as stated in the agreement. The court read the statutory “substantial change in circumstances” doctrine as addressing financial circumstances (ability to pay and payee’s needs), not a post‑dissolution psychological realization about past abuse. Further, challenges to the voluntariness of the MSA are not properly pursued by collateral motion to terminate payments; relief to vacate a judgment or agreement alleged to be procured by fraud/duress requires a 2‑1401 petition (collateral relief) and appropriate timeliness/grounds.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
- Final dissolution orders with express voluntariness findings and incorporated MSAs carry preclusive effect; belated factual theories (e.g., newly remembered abuse or “breakthroughs”) face procedural and res judicata barriers.
- If attacking the validity of an MSA/judgment, use the correct remedy (2‑1401) and be mindful of timeliness and evidentiary standards for fraud/duress/repressed memory.
- Draft MSAs with clear modification/termination mechanisms if parties want future flexibility; invoking 502(f) non‑modifiability will limit future relief to contractually specified exceptions and narrow statutory modification grounds (financial).
- When opposing collateral attacks, promptly move under 2‑619 asserting res judicata and lack of present marriage or other affirmative defenses.