In re Marriage of Dragoi-Zulicic, 2021 IL App (1st) 191732

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Dragoi‑Zulicic, 2021 IL App (1st) 191732.
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Priscilla M. Dragoi‑Zulicic. Respondent‑Appellant: Nermin Nikola Zulicic.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a post‑dissolution “motion to abate maintenance” was properly treated as a motion to enforce the dissolution judgment (redirecting maintenance payments to satisfy a delegated condominium‑assessment judgment).
- Whether enforcement of the dissolution judgment required proof of a “substantial change in circumstances” under 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5).
- Whether the trial court erred by denying respondent’s requests for discovery and enforcement of Cook County Circuit Court Rule 13.3.1(b) (financial affidavit requirement).

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court correctly characterized the motion as one to enforce the dissolution judgment and ordered petitioner’s monthly maintenance payments (unchanged in amount/duration) to be paid toward an agreed municipal judgment for unpaid condominium assessments for which the parties were jointly and severally liable. The court denied discovery and the Rule 13.3.1(b) enforcement request. No modification of the maintenance term or amount was required; petitioner could seek reimbursement if she paid in excess.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Substance over label: courts evaluate the relief requested, not the pleading title (citing In re Haley D.). Because petitioner sought to have monies already payable under the decree applied to a debt that the decree delegated to respondent, she sought enforcement of existing obligations—not a modification.
- Enforcement v. modification: a modification/termination of maintenance requires a showing of a substantial change in circumstances (750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5)), but that requirement does not apply when the court is enforcing decree terms.
- Trial court authority: trial courts retain continuing jurisdiction to enforce dissolution decrees and may permit setoffs or re‑direction of payments where equitable and within the decree’s terms.
- Forfeiture: appellant forfeited any challenge to characterization of the motion by failing to raise/support the issue properly on appeal.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Plead carefully: frame relief as enforcement versus modification depending on strategy—labels matter less than substance. If seeking enforcement of delegated obligations, you can often obtain redirection of payments without proving a “substantial change.”
- Preserve records: if you intend to argue characterization or compliance with local rules on appeal, preserve and brief the point at trial and on appeal. Failure to raise/brief = forfeiture.
- Local rules and affidavits: even if the court may exercise discretion, file required financial affidavits and produce discovery promptly to avoid procedural objections or waiver.
- Draft settlement/judgment language clearly: delegation, indemnity, and reimbursement provisions (and joint/several liability) will control post‑judgment enforcement—make obligations explicit.