In re Marriage of Brunke, 2019 IL App (2d) 190201

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Brunke, 2019 IL App (2d) 190201 (2d Dist. Dec. 24, 2019).
- Petitioner–Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Judith E. Brunke. Respondent–Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: John W. Brunke.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court properly (a) extended reviewable maintenance beyond the term set in the marital settlement agreement (MSA); (b) denied an increase in maintenance; and (c) denied respondent’s requests to abate/terminate maintenance pending resolution or upon changed circumstances.
- Application of the standards for modifying maintenance (substantial change in circumstances, fairness of MSA, and judicial discretion).

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court’s order extending maintenance (continuing $3,000/month) until respondent’s retirement was upheld; the petition to increase maintenance was denied; respondent’s petitions to abate/terminate maintenance were denied.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court found the MSA and the maintenance award were fair at the time of entry and remained equitable under the present circumstances.
- Although the court found petitioner had “done little if anything” to improve employability after the divorce, it also found petitioner’s age made it foreseeable she might not obtain substantially greater income — a factor weighing in favor of extension rather than increase.
- The court balanced: petitioner’s part‑time work and sizeable liquid/retirement assets (e.g., brokerage accounts), ongoing lifestyle similarities to marriage, and her claimed depletion of assets for living/taxes/fees, against respondent’s substantially increased income and wealth. The court concluded extension (not an increase) was equitable and allowed petitioner to defer Social Security to age 70 without being deprived of maintenance.
- The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and broad discretion in maintenance matters, applying the abuse‑of‑discretion/manifest‑weight standards.

5) Practice implications
- Draft MSAs with clear, detailed terms about reviewability, triggers for modification, termination events (e.g., retirement dates), offsets (Social Security), and interim relief for disputed payments to avoid ambiguity at review.
- When seeking an increase, clients must present convincing proof of a substantial change in circumstances (not just increased payer income), including credible evidence of need and reasonable efforts to become self‑supporting; courts will consider age, employability, assets, lifestyle, and foreseeability.
- Defending a modification: emphasize the fairness of the original agreement, show the obligee’s assets and post‑divorce conduct (delays in seeking work), and highlight equitable considerations (e.g., ability to defer Social Security).
- Preserve a detailed record (asset values, job search efforts, offers, medical/age limitations, testimony on representation at settlement) because appellate review is highly deferential to trial courts on maintenance decisions.