In re Marriage of Dynako, 2020 IL App (1st) 192116

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Dynako, 2020 IL App (1st) 192116.
- Petitioner-Appellee: Betsy (Dynako) Zacate; Respondent-Appellant: Stephen Dynako.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a marital settlement agreement provision stating maintenance is “non‑modifiable pursuant to Section 502(f) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act” bars a later court modification of maintenance (amount and/or duration).
- Whether respondent’s changed financial circumstances or alleged unconscionability could overcome an express contractual waiver of modification.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of respondent’s petition to modify or terminate maintenance. The non‑modifiability clause in the marital settlement agreement precluded judicial modification under the circumstances presented.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court enforced the parties’ express agreement that maintenance was non‑modifiable under §502(f) of the IMDMA. The language in the marital settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous, and covered the maintenance payments at issue (including structured reductions over an eight‑year period).
- The respondent’s later financial difficulties (reduced income after voluntarily leaving a banking job and inability to re‑secure comparable employment) did not authorize the court to override an explicit waiver of modification. The opinion emphasized the contractual autonomy of divorcing parties to settle maintenance terms and waive future judicial modification, absent a legal ground such as fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or a statutory basis to invalidate the agreement.
- The record also showed enforcement efforts (contempt findings and orders requiring payments/job searches), underscoring that respondent’s remedy was enforcement relief and not modification when he had agreed to non‑modifiable terms.

5. Practice implications
- Draft non‑modifiability clauses precisely: expressly state whether non‑modifiability applies to amount, duration, or both, and cite the IMDMA provision relied upon.
- Counsel clients on tradeoffs: non‑modifiable maintenance provides finality for payees but removes flexibility for payors facing later hardship; consider carveouts (e.g., material misrepresentation, fraud, or mutual mistake) if flexibility is desired.
- Ensure full and accurate financial disclosure at settlement; failure to disclose can fuel later unconscionability or fraud claims seeking to invalidate a waiver.
- If a client faces post‑judgment financial decline but agreed to non‑modifiable maintenance, focus on enforcement strategy and explore narrow equitable or statutory bases (fraud, duress, mistake) rather than expecting courts to rewrite clear settlement terms.