In re Marriage of Doermer, 2011 IL App (1st) 101567

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Doermer, 2011 IL App (1st) 101567. Petitioner-Appellee: Richard D. Doermer. Respondent-Appellant: Kathleen Doermer.

- Key legal issues
Whether a former spouse may seek an extension of maintenance when (1) the judgment incorporated a marital settlement agreement requiring a single monthly "unallocated maintenance and child support" payment, (2) the agreement contains an express nonmodification/termination clause for maintenance, and (3) the child for whom support was being paid has reached emancipation.

- Holding/outcome
The First District affirmed the circuit court’s grant of petitioner’s motion to dismiss the respondent’s petition for extension of maintenance. The court held the marital settlement agreement’s nonmodification/termination clause was enforceable and barred extension after the child’s emancipation.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court reviewed the interplay between the statutory framework (750 ILCS 5/502, 504(a), 510(a‑5)) and the parties’ contractual allocation. It relied on the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Blum v. Koster (235 Ill.2d 21 (2009)) to uphold enforcement of an agreement that limits or precludes modification of maintenance where the parties so provide and the agreement is not unconscionable. The appellate court rejected the respondent’s argument that "unallocated" payments are always subject to modification (citing In re Marriage of Semonchik and related cases), finding Blum controlling and permitting enforcement of the termination clause even though payments were labeled "unallocated maintenance and child support." Because the child became emancipated, the child‑support component ceased and the nonmodifiable termination provision foreclosed an extension of maintenance.

- Practice implications
1. Drafting: clearly allocate payments between child support and maintenance (or expressly state consequences of "unallocated" payments) and include precise termination and nonmodification language if parties intend finality.
2. Risk counseling: clients should be advised that, post‑Blum, courts may enforce nonmodification clauses in marital settlement agreements, including where payments were unallocated, so long as terms are clear and not unconscionable.
3. Litigation strategy: challenges to such clauses should emphasize unconscionability or statutory public‑policy limits (child support protection), and petitioners seeking extension must identify a substantial change in circumstances and overcome any clear contractual waiver.
4. Timing: emancipation events can change the legal character of obligations that were previously unallocated—review agreements for contingencies tied to emancipation, remarriage, death, and cohabitation.