In re Marriage of Bolnick, 2024 IL App (1st) 230014-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Bolnick, 2024 IL App (1st) 230014-U (1st Dist. Mar. 20, 2024) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Kay Bolnick. Respondent-Appellee: Howard Bolnick.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to modify/interpret prior dissolution/maintenance orders arising from Kay’s 2017 petition to enforce maintenance.
- Whether the trial court erred in declaring which prior order governs future maintenance calculations (i.e., the May 19, 2021 clarification imputing income from Radix Actuarial Consultants, Inc. (RAC) to Howard).
- Whether there was evidentiary support for imputing income to the obligor based on corporate restructuring to reduce reported compensation.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in entering a declaratory judgment adopting respondent’s counter-petition: the May 19, 2021 clarification governs future maintenance calculations (impute to Howard the greater of RAC distributions to his wife or RAC’s remaining revenues net of ordinary business expenses). The trial court’s resolution of arrears through the April 19, 2022 judgment stood.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court treated the procedural history as an enforcement matter: Judge Ross’s October 9, 2020 opinion order, and her May 19, 2021 clarification, were intended to resolve Kay’s enforcement petition and to establish the method for calculating imputed income. The later April 19, 2022 judgment fixed arrears through September 30, 2020.
- The appellate court agreed the May 19, 2021 clarification remained operative for prospective maintenance. The trial court no longer could reopen or materially modify the closed enforcement judgment as to past arrears, but it properly adjudicated the remaining controversy about the calculation method going forward via declaratory judgment.
- The record supported the underlying factual finding that Howard’s incorporation/restructuring had the effect of reducing reported compensation; the court permissibly imputed income based on distributions/remaining revenues given evidence that the corporate form was used to shift income to his wife.

5. Practice implications
- Preserve challenges: litigants must timely and specifically challenge clarifications or imputation formulas in post-judgment proceedings; failure to do so (or to press objections at the clarification hearing) limits later attack.
- Use discovery aggressively when a payor restructures: obtain corporate returns, K‑1s, distributions and expense detail to support income imputation.
- Seek clear, written clarifying orders when a judge intends a particular method for imputing income; settlements resolving arrears can bind parties and narrow later disputes to prospective calculation methods.
- Declaratory-judgment petitions are an appropriate mechanism to resolve residual calculation disputes once enforcement/arrearage claims have been reduced to final judgment.