In re Marriage of Cherry, 2023 IL App (4th) 220994-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Cherry, 2023 IL App (4th) 220994‑U (Oct. 23, 2023) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential). Petitioner/Cross‑Appellee: Diane Cherry. Respondent/Cross‑Appellant: Andrew Cherry. Appeal from Sangamon County Circuit Court (dissolution entered 2016; maintenance awarded to petitioner).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court must modify an existing maintenance award where the dissolution judgment stated that a change in the payee’s employment “shall be considered a substantial change in circumstances.”
- Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider or by ignoring required statutory factors in denying respondent’s motion to modify maintenance based on his injury/retirement and petitioner’s employment.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The Fourth District held the trial court did not err: (a) the dissolution‑judgment language did not mandate an automatic modification; and (b) the trial court properly considered the statutory factors and permissibly denied respondent’s motion to modify maintenance.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The appellate court emphasized that contractual or judgment language treating an event as a “substantial change” does not deprive the trial court of its statutory discretion to determine whether modification is warranted under applicable law. A showing of changed circumstances is a threshold; modification still requires the court’s fact‑specific balancing of the statutory factors (income, needs, earning capacity, assets, retirement/pension, efforts to secure employment, debts/expenses, etc.).
- The record supported the trial court’s factual findings: petitioner had part‑time brand‑ambassador income and bank deposits; respondent had an ankle fracture, medical restrictions, and had retired and begun receiving a pension, but his pension and other assets did not conclusively justify reducing or terminating maintenance when all factors were weighed. The court’s evidentiary rulings (limiting certain medical testimony and excluding X‑ray photos without proper foundation) and credibility assessments were reviewed for abuse of discretion and sustained.

5. Practice implications
- Draft dissolution provisions carefully: language that a change “shall” be considered substantial does not guarantee modification and may be given only evidentiary weight.
- When seeking modification, present a complete, well‑documented record on statutory factors: tax returns, paystubs, detailed bank records tied to sources, medical records and expert opinions establishing ability to work, pension documentation, and clear budgets.
- Anticipate appellate deference to trial courts on credibility and discretionary evidentiary rulings; develop a record showing the court failed to consider required factors if seeking reversal.
- For respondents claiming incapacity/retirement, quantify how new income (pension/annuity) and assets affect need and ability to pay; for payees who obtain work, document hours, wages, and reasonable job prospects to show impact on maintenance.