In re Marriage of Caminiti, 2019 IL App (1st) 171563-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Caminiti, 2019 IL App (1st) 171563-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. Jan. 29, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Debra Caminiti. Respondent-Appellee: Joseph Caminiti.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by (a) terminating rehabilitative maintenance nunc pro tunc to the sixty‑month review date and ordering repayment of maintenance paid after that date; and (b) denying petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees under 750 ILCS 5/508.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in (a) terminating maintenance retroactively (to Oct. 27, 2013) and ordering Debra to repay maintenance received after that date, and (b) denying Debra’s petition for fees under section 508.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: abuse of discretion for maintenance modification/termination and for fee awards under section 508.
- The dissolution judgment made maintenance “reviewable” after 60 months. At the review hearing, the trial court evaluated testimony and documentary evidence concerning Debra’s earning capacity, assets, efforts to become self‑supporting, and medical issues.
- The court found Debra had substantial post‑divorce assets (real estate, investment accounts, ongoing Walgreens employment and profit‑sharing), had opportunities to increase earnings (seniority as a “floater” pharmacist and ability to bid for full‑time positions), had not diligently sought full‑time work earlier, and experienced episodic increases in income. The court concluded she could be self‑supporting and properly terminated maintenance as of the review date; repayment for amounts received after that date was ordered.
- On fees, the trial court concluded Debra had the ability to pay her own attorney fees; under section 508 the court may allocate fees based on the parties’ relative financial positions and reasonableness of claims. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in denying fees.

5) Practice implications
- Trial courts may terminate rehabilitative maintenance retroactively to the review date if evidence supports cessation of need; recipients may be ordered to repay maintenance received after that effective date.
- To resist termination, present clear contemporaneous proof of ongoing inability to be self‑supporting (earnings history, failed job‑search efforts explained, medical limits, liquidity needs) and document why assets aren’t reasonably available.
- For section 508 fee requests, quantify inability to pay and opponent’s ability to pay; courts balance conduct, need, and relative resources—failure to show inability may result in denial.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 unpublished order and is not binding precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).