In re Marriage of Bernstein, 2023 IL App (2d) 210623‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Bernstein, No. 2-21-0623 (2d Dist. Apr. 14, 2023) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Vicki A. Bernstein. Respondent/Appellant: Robert T. Bernstein.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding a substantial change in circumstances warranting retroactive modification of maintenance (and calculating retroactive maintenance).
- Whether respondent could rely on an agreement clause purporting to make maintenance non‑modifiable.
- Whether sanctions imposed for respondent’s acquisition/use of a financial document (from petitioner’s garbage) were improper.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s entry of $73,399.14 in retroactive maintenance and affirmed discovery sanctions. The court rejected appellant’s challenges because the record was deficient and issues were forfeited.

4) Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Record deficiencies: Appellant failed to provide transcripts of several key hearings (Aug. 6, 2018; Dec. 13, 2018; Mar. 4, 2019; Apr. 25, 2019). Without those transcripts the appellate court could not evaluate whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding a substantial change in circumstances; the appellant bears the burden to supply a sufficient record on appeal, and omissions ordinarily justify affirmance.
- Modification authority: The trial court found the agreement’s “Non‑Modifiable” label did not prevent modification of maintenance amount (only duration), and that changes since the divorce—statutory amendments to the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (see 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5) context) and petitioner’s changed financial circumstances (unemployment, increased expenses for college‑age children, etc.)—supported modification. The court emphasized that statutory changes alone do not automatically constitute a substantial change, but here the maintenance formula’s interaction with revised child‑support rules produced a meaningful effect.
- Sanctions/forfeiture: Appellant’s attack on discovery sanctions was forfeited—the appellate brief did not preserve/adequately develop the record or arguments necessary to obtain relief.

5) Practice implications (practical points for counsel)
- Preserve and compile a complete record: failure to include transcripts of contested hearings is often fatal on appeal.
- Draft settlement clauses clearly: “non‑modifiable” language should specify whether it applies to amount, duration, or both; anticipate future statutory changes and interdependencies between maintenance and child‑support formulas.
- When maintenance is formulaically tied to child support, legislative changes affecting deductions can produce grounds for modification—raise these issues promptly and develop the evidentiary record.
- Discovery misconduct (including secretly obtaining opposing party’s documents) can lead to sanctions; challenges to sanctions require a preserved record and specific appellate argument.