In re Marriage of Bostrom, 2022 IL App (1st) 200967

In re Marriage of Bostrom, 2022 IL App (1st) 200967

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Bostrom, 2022 IL App (1st) 200967 (1st Dist., Aug. 26, 2022).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Dean Bostrom. Respondent‑Appellant: Sandra Bostrom.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a payor’s retirement and the recipient’s increased income (including receipt of pension payments under a QILDRO) constituted a “substantial change in circumstances” permitting modification of permanent maintenance under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/510).
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in reducing monthly maintenance to $0 (and the attendant effect on the husband’s life‑insurance obligation under the marital settlement agreement).

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not err in finding a substantial change in circumstances and did not abuse its discretion in modifying maintenance to $0 per month. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The MSA provided permanent maintenance of $1,750/month and required the husband to maintain a $200,000 life policy “until his retirement or maintenance terminates.” After retirement (Apr. 27, 2018) the husband sought termination of maintenance and the life‑insurance obligation. A QILDRO was later entered giving the wife 50% of the husband’s IMRF pension (~$4,209.50/month). The wife’s wage income had also increased since the divorce (from ~$65,000 to over $100,000 annually), producing a substantial overall increase in her present resources (the opinion cites a 53% increase in her earnings).
- The court applied the statutory framework allowing modification of maintenance upon a substantial change in circumstances and afforded deference to the trial court’s factual findings, credibility assessments, and balancing of statutory factors. The appellate panel concluded the trial court reasonably relied on the wife’s increased income and pension receipt in finding a substantial change and in setting maintenance at $0 rather than reinstating the prior payment.
- The court rejected the wife’s contention that the income increase was contemplated at divorce so could not constitute a substantial change, noting the evidence at the modification hearing and the trial court’s fact‑finding authority.

5) Practice implications
- Retirement by a payor can trigger modification, but courts will weigh the recipient’s post‑divorce earnings and newly available retirement payments (e.g., via QILDRO) in deciding relief.
- Parties should be precise in MSA language about maintenance termination triggers and life‑insurance ties to maintenance/retirement.
- Attacking or defending modification turns on contemporaneous proof of actual income, pension entitlements (QILDROs), commingling of third‑party inheritances, and credibility — appellate courts defer to trial court fact‑finding.
- Practitioners should plan for and litigate the timing/effect of QILDROs and clearly address whether a reduction to $0 is intended as permanent termination or subject to future modification.