In re Marriage of Bartlett, LLC, 2022 IL App (1st) 201358-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Bartlett, 2022 IL App (1st) 201358‑U (1st Dist. Mar. 17, 2022). Counter-respondent/Appellee: Lynne E. Bartlett. Counter-petitioner/Appellant: Dennis M. Quinn.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether a former husband’s drop in earned income caused by voluntary retirement constitutes a “substantial change in circumstances” under Section 510 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act so as to permit modification or termination of post‑dissolution maintenance.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the husband to pay the wife’s attorney fees in full.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It held the trial court erred in finding that Quinn’s decreased income from voluntary retirement did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of maintenance. The court affirmed the trial court’s award obligating Quinn to pay Bartlett’s attorney fees (approximately $73,271.09) in full. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court emphasized that a voluntary retirement that materially reduces a payor’s income can amount to a substantial change in circumstances under Section 510 — it is not categorically disallowed simply because retirement was voluntary. The appellate court distinguished the standards for terminating vs. modifying maintenance and found the trial court improperly conflated them (the trial court had granted a directed finding as to termination but denied modification). The record showed a significant decline in Quinn’s earned income after retirement, ongoing retirement and investment assets (including required minimum distributions), Social Security receipts, past maintenance payments, mortgage obligations, gifting to children, and the wife’s limited earning capacity and assets. Those facts require the trial court to reassess maintenance under the statutory framework rather than refuse modification solely because the payor’s retirement was voluntary. As to attorney fees, the appellate court found the trial court acted within its discretion: the fee award was supported by the parties’ relative resources, the wife’s need, and the reasonableness of fees documented in the record.

- Practice implications (brief)
- Voluntary retirement is not per se a bar to modification; litigants must develop a full record on income before/after retirement, assets (including IRAs/RMDs), Social Security, gifts, and lifestyle.
- Separate analyses are required for termination versus modification; counsel should address intent to evade obligations and reasonableness of retirement timing.
- When seeking fee awards, document need and reasonableness and emphasize disparity in resources and the client’s limited ability to pay.
- Expect remands for recalculation when appellate courts find the trial court misapplied the Section 510 substantial‑change inquiry.