In re Marriage of Conklin, 2025 IL App (3d) 240330-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Conklin, 2025 IL App (3d) 240330‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. June 12, 2025) (Rule 23 order—not precedent).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Carolyn M. Conklin n/k/a Carolyn M. Elbrecht.
- Respondent‑Appellant: Edward K. Conklin.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether an uncapped percentage maintenance formula in an agreed order precludes a finding of a "substantial change in circumstances" based on the payor’s increased income.
- Whether the trial court erred in applying (or refusing to apply) the amended 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5) (foreseeability/contemplation) and whether the court’s factual conclusion was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether maintenance should be reduced or terminated where recipient’s needs allegedly unchanged and payor’s income spiked from exercising stock options.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the circuit court did not err: it correctly denied Edward’s petition to modify or terminate maintenance because there was no substantial change in circumstances warranting modification.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The trial court found (and the appellate court accepted) that Edward knew of and contemplated the stock options and his history of exercising them when the parties entered the March 2, 2018 agreed order (base salary + 30% of gross income in excess). That foreseeability meant the 2021 income spike (largely from exercising pre‑existing McDonald’s options) was not a changed circumstance.
- The court declined to retroactively apply the amended § 510(a‑5) because it was not in effect at the time of the 2018 order (nor when the 2020 petition was filed).
- Independently, the court found on the manifest weight of the evidence that Carolyn’s needs/lifestyle had not materially changed and that Edward’s income history (including earlier large spikes) showed the 2021 increase was not a new, substantial change but a contemplated fluctuation.
- The appellate court expressly did not establish a categorical rule that income increases can never be a basis for modification where an uncapped percentage exists, relying instead on the trial court’s factual findings.

5. Practice implications (practical takeaways for counsel)
- Draft settlement provisions expressly: define "income," address treatment of options/restricted stock, state whether post‑dissolution exercises are included/excluded, set caps or true‑up mechanics, and specify foreseeability language.
- When negotiating percentage formulas, include clear examples/allocations for stock option exercises and liquidation events to avoid later disputes about contemplation.
- For payors seeking modification after a windfall, develop record evidence showing lack of foreseeability and distinguish pre‑existing assets from post‑dissolution earnings; for recipients, document needs and reliance.
- Watch statutory timing: amended § 510(a‑5) issues can turn on when orders/petitions were entered.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 non‑precedential decision—persuasive but not binding.