In re Marriage of Bonzani, 2023 IL App (3d) 220526-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Bonzani, 2023 IL App (3d) 220526-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Nov. 30, 2023, Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Phyllis Bonzani (n/k/a Sporlein). Respondent-Appellant: Robert A. Bonzani.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether a post‑dissolution agreed order that described maintenance as “non‑modifiable and non‑terminable” limited the trial court’s review after a contractual review trigger to duration only, or whether amount also could be reviewed.
2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by extending $3,000/month maintenance indefinitely and whether it adequately considered the recipient’s efforts toward self‑support.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part. It held the trial court erred in confining its review to duration only — the contract’s review language (“to determine if, and to what extent”) encompassed amount as well as duration. The court nevertheless affirmed the trial court’s decision to extend the $3,000/month maintenance indefinitely, finding no abuse of discretion on the record. (This is a Rule 23 order — not precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).)

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court treated the marital settlement agreement (MSA) and the later Agreed Order as contractual instruments to be construed together. Because the Agreed Order expressly incorporated the MSA and preserved MSA terms not expressly modified, the MSA’s §3(b) review provision controlled. Section 3(b) provided that payments continued until 12/31/2018 and were “subject to review … to determine if, and to what extent” additional support was warranted. The court interpreted “to what extent” to include both duration and amount. The Agreed Order’s label of maintenance as “non‑modifiable/non‑terminable” did not by itself and unambiguously negate the MSA’s review mechanism. The court thus concluded the trial court should have considered amount as well as duration, although, based on the evidentiary record, the extension of maintenance indefinitely was within the trial court’s discretion and was not reversed.

- Practice implications for attorneys
- Drafting: If parties intend to bar future modification of maintenance amount, use explicit, unambiguous language and address temporal scope (permanent vs. until a specific date); state whether prior agreement provisions remain operative when incorporated.
- Incorporation: When an agreed order incorporates an earlier MSA, courts will construe the instruments together; labels alone (“non‑modifiable”) may not control if other language contemplates review.
- Litigation: Parties seeking modification should timely invoke contractual review triggers and prove substantial change per 750 ILCS 5/510. Parties defending modification should emphasize clear, specific waivers of modification and call out any conflicting MSA provisions.
- Procedure: Ensure clarity about which provisions survive and whether review is limited to duration or amount to avoid appellate reversal.