In re Marriage of Dynako, 2021 IL 126835

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Dynako, 2021 IL 126835 (Ill. Nov. 18, 2021).
- Appellee: Betsy Dynako; Appellant: Stephen Dynako. Supreme Court of Illinois — judgment affirming the appellate and circuit courts.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a marital settlement agreement (MSA) provision stating “Said maintenance payments shall be nonmodifiable pursuant to Section 502(f)” is sufficiently specific to render maintenance nonmodifiable in both amount and duration under 750 ILCS 5/502(f).
- Whether courts may require a more explicit phrase (“non‑modifiable as to amount, duration, or both”) than was used here.

3) Holding / outcome
- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed: the MSA language, coupled with the detailed payment schedule and express citation to §502(f), demonstrated the parties’ intent to make maintenance nonmodifiable in both amount and duration. The circuit court properly denied the husband’s petition to modify maintenance.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory and contract interpretation principles: where statutory language is clear, courts must give effect to it. Section 502(f) plainly allows parties to provide that maintenance be nonmodifiable “in amount, duration, or both.”
- The MSA specified an exact 8‑year schedule with precise monthly/annual amounts and then expressly declared the payments “nonmodifiable pursuant to Section 502(f).” The Court read those two parts together to infer the parties’ intent to make both amount and duration nonmodifiable.
- The Court refused to impose additional formalistic wording requirements not found in the statute (i.e., it would not read into §502(f) a mandatory magic‑word formula). Contractual interpretation rules govern MSAs and intent is derived from the agreement’s language.
- Result: a clear, incorporated schedule plus express nonmodifiable clause citing §502(f) suffices to preclude modification for a substantial change in circumstances.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Drafting: best practice remains to state explicitly whether nonmodifiable applies to amount, duration, or both (e.g., “Maintenance is nonmodifiable as to amount and duration pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/502(f)”). Explicitness avoids potential dispute even though the Court found the cited language sufficient.
- Integration: incorporate MSAs into the judgment and reference §502(f) where intended to limit modification. Provide clear schedules and payment mechanics (accounts, timing).
- Client counseling: ensure clients understand finality — nonmodifiable maintenance cannot later be reduced for changed circumstances. Document informed consent (affidavits, negotiation records) to reduce claims of mistake or coercion.
- Negotiation options: if flexibility is desired, include narrowly defined carve‑outs (e.g., termination on death, remarriage, or specified future events) rather than relying on judicial modification.