In re Marriage of Goldner, 2023 IL App (1st) 211272-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Goldner, 2023 IL App (1st) 211272‑U.
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Ronna Goldner (n/k/a Ronna Multack). Respondent‑Appellee: Sheldon Goldner.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether respondent’s retirement constituted a “substantial change in circumstances” warranting modification/termination of maintenance under 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5).
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in reducing monthly maintenance from $25,000 to $4,867.01 (retroactive to the motion date).
- Whether statutory interest (9% under 750 ILCS 5/504(b‑5)) was properly denied on (a) withheld retroactive maintenance and (b) unpaid life‑insurance premium reimbursements.

3. Holding/outcome
- Appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s modification reducing maintenance from $25,000 to $4,867.01 (retroactive to the filing of respondent’s petition).
- Affirmed trial court’s denial of statutory interest on life‑insurance reimbursements.
- Reversed trial court’s denial of statutory interest on withheld maintenance payments and remanded for calculation of interest owed (on either the original maintenance amount or the retroactively‑modified amount). Trial court’s contempt order and award of outstanding maintenance ($150,877.31) were affirmed in substance.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Substantial change: The court found respondent’s retirement genuine (no wages from PMRS, delegation of duties, only “emeritus” involvement). Under section 510(a‑5), a bona fide retirement that materially reduces the payor’s ability to pay can be a substantial change.
- Modification (not termination): Applying the statutory factors (employment status, earning capacity, property division, income changes, efforts at self‑support, tax consequences, duration of payments, etc.), the trial court permissibly exercised its discretion to reduce rather than terminate maintenance because petitioner’s needs could still be met in part by property settlement payments and other income.
- Statutory interest: The appellate court distinguished life‑insurance reimbursements (treated differently; no statutory basis for interest where insurance secured real‑estate obligation) from overdue support. Because withheld maintenance constituted amounts that “became due and remained unpaid,” statutory post‑judgment interest under section 504(b‑5) should apply; remand was required to determine the correct interest calculation.

5. Practice implications
- When seeking modification based on retirement, develop a strong factual record of bona fides (income, duties delegated, payroll evidence, timing, medical reasons).
- If payer ceases maintenance while petition is pending, pursue statutory interest claims aggressively — appellate court will enforce interest on overdue support even where retroactive modification ensues.
- Treat life‑insurance premium disputes separately; statutory interest may not apply.
- Preserve and litigate tax‑treatment issues at trial; courts are reluctant to alter post‑judgment tax allocations absent clear justification.