In re Marriage of Carstens, 2019 IL App (2d) 190327-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Carstens, 2019 IL App (2d) 190327‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Nov. 22, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Sue Carstens. Respondent‑Appellant: John Carstens.

- Key legal issues
1) Who bears the burden of proof in a petition to modify or terminate post‑dissolution maintenance?
2) Whether respondent’s change in employment and income constituted a “substantial change in circumstances” under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/504, 510) sufficient to terminate or reduce an award of indefinite maintenance.

- Holding / outcome
The Second District affirmed the trial court: the party seeking modification/termination (respondent) bears the burden of proof, and respondent failed to show a substantial change in circumstances warranting termination or reduction of the indefinite maintenance. The trial court’s award of $5,000/month indefinite maintenance to petitioner remained in place, subject to future review upon a proper showing.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court reiterated that a movant seeking modification/termination must prove a substantial change in circumstances. On the record, respondent’s termination from his longtime CEO position and subsequent employment at a lower‑paying job (with interim separation payments) did not, as proved, meet that threshold. The appellate court accepted the trial court’s consideration of prior factual findings (the court took judicial notice of the 2011 hearing transcript and incorporated those findings), including the parties’ lifestyles, relative assets, and petitioner’s limited earning capacity (past homemaker with health limitations). Although respondent showed reduced periodic cash flow, the court emphasized the totality of evidence: respondent’s ongoing earning capacity, severance/transition payments, petitioner’s asset income and continued health limitations, and the trial court’s crediting of the earlier factual findings. Those factors supported the trial court’s conclusion that the change was not sufficiently substantial to terminate indefinite maintenance.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Movant seeking modification/termination must carry the burden to prove a substantial change in circumstances — mere reduction in current income, without demonstrating durable impairment of earning capacity or other material, lasting changes, may be insufficient.
- Courts may take judicial notice of and rely on prior trial findings; litigants should preserve and controvert prior factual findings where necessary.
- Present comprehensive, current documentary proof (pay stubs, tax returns, severance terms, job offer letters, realistic earning‑capacity analyses, medical proof) to demonstrate permanence of change.
- Rule 23 status: this opinion is non‑precedential but persuasive on burden and evidentiary expectations in maintenance modification matters.