In re Marriage of Durchslag, 2024 IL App (2d) 220268-U

1) Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Durchslag, 2024 IL App (2d) 220268‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Mar. 12, 2024) (Rule 23 order; not precedent except as allowed). Petitioner/Appellee: Toby Durchslag. Respondent/Appellant: Scott Durchslag.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying respondent’s motion to terminate or modify indefinite (formerly “permanent”) maintenance under 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5) based on an alleged substantial change in circumstances.
- Whether respondent’s unilateral cessation of maintenance payments supported a finding of indirect civil contempt.
- Whether attorney fees incurred by petitioner in the contempt proceedings were properly awarded.

3) Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not err in (a) denying Scott’s motion to terminate/reduce maintenance, (b) finding Scott in indirect civil contempt for stopping payments without court leave, and (c) awarding Toby attorney fees related to the contempt proceedings.

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Background: Trial court originally awarded Toby indefinite maintenance set at $42,645.92/month (30% of Scott’s average gross annual income calculated at ~$1.7M). Scott later obtained a large compensation/severance package (Angie’s List) but was again unemployed and asserted inability to pay after depleting assets.
- Change‑in‑circumstances standard: The court applied section 510(a‑5) and found Scott failed to show a substantial change. Key points: Scott’s unemployment was not new—he was unemployed when maintenance was first awarded and the court had already accounted for cyclical unemployment by averaging income. Including the 2017 severance actually increased his calculated average, not decreased it. Toby’s disability and needs remained unchanged.
- Voluntary depletion doctrine: The trial court found Scott voluntarily diverted substantial assets (≈$3M) into a speculative horse business and personal expenditures (credit card charges, horse upkeep), reducing his ability to pay. Voluntary, imprudent expenditures to pursue a business or lifestyle do not constitute a change in circumstances warranting modification (citing Virdi, Deike).
- Contempt and fees: Scott stopped payments unilaterally and after denial of abatement the court held him in indirect civil contempt. Fee award for contempt‑related attorney fees was appropriate.

5) Practice implications
- Do not unilaterally stop court‑ordered maintenance; seek court leave or temporary abatement supported by clear, credible evidence. Contempt (and fee awards) is a real risk.
- When litigating modification, be prepared to prove a substantial, non‑voluntary change; courts scrutinize voluntary depletion of assets and speculative business ventures.
- Preserve and produce complete financial records (tax returns, brokerage/stock sale documentation) and contemporaneous evidence of bona fide job search and unavoidable obligations.
- Income averaging remains an acceptable method when historical volatility and cyclical unemployment are shown.