In re Marriage of Cunningham, 2022 IL App (4th) 210494-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Cunningham, No. 4-21-0494, 2022 IL App (4th) 210494‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Apr. 2022) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Elizabeth Ann Cunningham; Respondent‑Appellee: Jeffrey Edward Cunningham.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in terminating (rather than extending) rehabilitative maintenance.
- Whether the court erred in denying petitioner’s indirect civil contempt petition for alleged underpayment/nonpayment of child support (bonus payments) and in calculating the child‑support arrearage.
- Whether the court erred by failing to impose mandatory statutory interest on child‑support arrearages.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allocating attorney fees.

3. Holding / outcome
- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s termination of maintenance and its denial of petitioner’s contempt claim and its calculation of the arrearage (as to principal).
- The appellate court reversed insofar as the trial court failed to impose mandatory statutory interest on the child‑support arrearages and remanded for calculation and entry of interest.
- The trial court’s allocation of attorney fees (awarding petitioner contribution but only a fraction payable by respondent) was affirmed as not an abuse of discretion.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Maintenance: The judgment awarded rehabilitative maintenance reviewable after a stated date. The appellate court applied the abuse‑of‑discretion standard and found the trial court did not err in terminating maintenance given the record on petitioner’s rehabilitation opportunities, employment history/earning capacity, and changes in circumstances since the 2002 decree.
- Contempt / arrearage: To obtain indirect civil contempt for nonpayment, the movant must prove a clear, definite, and unequivocal order and willful noncompliance. The court concluded petitioner failed to prove willfulness or that respondent owed the particular bonus‑derived sums she claimed; the trial court’s calculation of arrears (principal) was not shown to be erroneous.
- Statutory interest: The appellate court held interest on overdue child support is statutorily mandatory (the parties and trial court acknowledged 9% in pleadings) and the trial court’s failure to impose it was legal error requiring remand to compute and enter interest.
- Attorney fees: Fee allocation rests within trial court discretion based on need, ability to pay, and reasonableness; the record supported the court’s limited contribution award.

5. Practice implications
- When litigating maintenance review/termination, build a full record on rehabilitative efforts, earning capacity, and changed circumstances; appellate review is deferential.
- For contempt and arrearage claims, prove the exact basis and willfulness of nonpayment (show the source, characterization of income, specific amounts, and that the payor knowingly violated the order).
- Remember statutory interest on child‑support arrears is mandatory — ensure trial courts calculate and award interest (and include arguments/calculations in pleadings).
- Fee requests should document necessity, reasonableness, and parties’ financial disparity; trial courts have broad discretion but must articulate rationale.