In re Marriage of Folley, 2021 IL App (3d) 180427

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Folley, 2021 IL App (3d) 180427.
- Petitioner-Appellant: Anne E.L. Folley; Respondent-Appellee: Gregory S. Folley.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a payor’s early/forced retirement constitutes a “substantial change in circumstances” permitting modification or termination of maintenance under Illinois law.
- Whether and to what extent a trial court may reduce a payor’s life‑insurance obligation that secures maintenance when modifying maintenance.
- Proper application of the “voluntary retirement/imputed income” principles when a payor leaves high‑paying employment.

3. Holding/outcome
- The Third District vacated the trial court’s order that reduced maintenance to $0 and that lowered life‑insurance coverage (from $3.3M to $500K), and remanded for further proceedings.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Modification of maintenance requires a substantial post‑judgment change in circumstances. The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion because it did not adequately apply governing principles concerning early retirement and income imputation before terminating maintenance.
- Where a payor leaves lucrative employment (even when presented with a choice between termination or early retirement), courts must inquire into voluntariness, reasonableness and good faith of the retirement and consider imputed earning capacity rather than simply accepting reduced actual income. Failure to make express findings on those points (and on efforts/search for reemployment and the payor’s spending/lifestyle choices) undermines a modification that effectively terminates support.
- Similarly, reducing life‑insurance security for maintenance requires specific findings tying the change to the underlying modification analysis; the record must justify lowering collateral that secures future maintenance.

5. Practice implications (for attorneys)
- When seeking modification, present detailed evidence on the employer decision, severance, pension offsets, efforts to obtain comparable employment, asset liquidity, and post‑retirement lifestyle to justify a change. Establish good‑faith job search and objective business reasons for retirement.
- When opposing modification, press the court to impute income or find voluntary/unreasonable retirement where warranted; highlight retained assets, lifestyle spending, and ability to continue support. Request explicit findings on voluntariness, earning capacity, and imputation.
- Treat life insurance securing maintenance as collateral: obtain (or defend) detailed findings before any reduction; consider alternative security (escrow, trust, or lien) or temporary modifications rather than termination.
- Seek clear remedial language on reemployment triggers, burden of proof for restoration of maintenance, and preservation of jurisdiction to avoid piecemeal or ambiguous remedies on remand.