In re Marriage of Ball, 2022 IL App (3d) 210019-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Ball, 2022 IL App (3d) 210019‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. July 22, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Maureen Therese Ball. Respondent‑Appellant: Dale Clifton Ball.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether a marital settlement agreement that characterizes spousal support as “permanent” can nonetheless bar judicial modification.
2) Whether general “no modification” / “written amendment only” contract clauses in a marital settlement agreement are enforceable to preclude statutory modification of maintenance.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the husband’s motion to modify maintenance. The court held the parties’ agreement barred judicial modification (absent fraud/duress or mutual written consent) and therefore the husband could not obtain modification based on loss of employment.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The court applied traditional contract interpretation principles and reviewed the agreement de novo. It relied on the plain language of the Agreement: (1) a maintenance provision awarding $4,700/month “as and for permanent spousal support” and (2) two controlling provisions — §10.5 (no amendment except by subsequent written agreement signed by both parties) and §10.6 (provisions not subject to court modification except by mutual consent or a showing of fraud/duress). The court cited 750 ILCS 5/502(f) (West 2014), which permits parties to provide in a judgment that terms may be precluded from modification. The court rejected the appellant’s contention that the label “permanent” created an implicit right to modification, instead holding the agreement’s express anti‑modification language applied to the maintenance clause. The opinion relied on analogous Illinois decisions (e.g., In re Marriage of Scarp; In re Marriage of Schweitzer) upholding “catchall” no‑modification clauses.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Drafting: If clients want non‑modifiable support, include clear, specific anti‑modification language (and reference statutory authority). If flexibility is desired, expressly preserve the right to seek modification for specified contingencies (job loss, disability, bankruptcy, long‑term unemployment), and define the standard/notice.
- Risk allocation: Anticipate enforceability of broad “written amendment only” clauses; courts will enforce them absent fraud/duress.
- Client counseling: Explain that “permanent” alone may not guarantee modifiability; the contract’s overall language controls.
- Litigation strategy: When seeking modification despite an agreement, plead fraud/duress or show the agreement permits judicial intervention; consider contract‑based equitable arguments or settlement renegotiation.