In re Marriage of Eisenhauer, 2021 IL App (5th) 200111-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Eisenhauer, 2021 IL App (5th) 200111-U.
- Petitioner-Appellee: Debra R. Eisenhauer. Respondent-Appellant: Glenn A. Eisenhauer.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether maintenance set by a marital settlement agreement (MSA) incorporated into a dissolution judgment (when the MSA did not state maintenance was non‑modifiable) may be modified on showing of a “substantial change in circumstances.”
- What proof a movant must present to establish a substantial change and the court’s scope of review.

3. Holding/outcome
- The Fifth District affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying husband’s petition to modify maintenance where husband failed to prove the parties’ financial circumstances at the time of the judgment and failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances since entry of the judgment.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory framework: where an MSA does not make maintenance non‑modifiable, modification requires a substantial change under 750 ILCS 5/502(f) and 5/510(a‑5); courts consider the §510(a‑5) and §504(a) factors.
- Burden of proof: the party seeking modification bears the burden to demonstrate the change. The court emphasized the need for comparative, factual evidence of incomes, expenses, assets, and timing of events.
- Facts controlling: husband filed to modify roughly three months after the MSA was incorporated. He produced limited evidence (testimony and a single pay stub) and did not produce a financial affidavit or documentation of his pre‑judgment finances; wife’s affidavit was in the record. Husband’s health issues were known at the time the MSA was executed. The court found his proof insufficient to show his earning capacity or that ability to pay had meaningfully declined. The trial court’s factual findings on those points were entitled to deference; denial was not an abuse of discretion.

5. Practice implications
- For movants: compile contemporaneous, comparative documentary evidence (financial affidavits, tax returns, full payroll records, medical records, expense ledgers) showing that the change post‑dates the judgment and is substantial. Anticipatory or known pre‑MSA conditions weaken a post‑judgment modification claim.
- For respondents: emphasize pre‑MSA knowledge of the condition, lack of changed circumstances, and submit records of prior income to defeat modification.
- For drafters of MSAs: expressly state whether maintenance is modifiable or non‑modifiable to avoid later disputes.
- Appellate posture: trial courts have broad discretion on modification motions; appellate review is for abuse of that discretion and will be deferential when factual support is lacking.