In re Marriage of Graham, 2021 IL App (3d) 200476

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Graham, 2021 IL App (3d) 200476. Petitioner-Appellant: Janet C. Graham (n/k/a Janet C. Michalek). Respondent-Appellee: James J. Graham. Appeal from Will County; judgment affirmed (Dec. 10, 2021).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether a 2012 agreed modification that made the husband “responsible for all the college debt for all three of the parties’ children, present and past and future expenses” superseded or eliminated the timing and “propensity for educability and higher learning” conditions in the 2010 dissolution judgment.
2. Whether petitioner’s reimbursement claim was time-barred under the IMDMA timing rules (including the 2016 amendment to 750 ILCS 5/513(a)).
3. Whether the trial court properly granted a section 2-619 motion to dismiss based on affidavits and unrefuted factual assertions.

- Holding / outcome
The Third District affirmed dismissal with prejudice. The 2012 modification changed which party pays but did not rescind the unrelated substantive conditions (the educability prerequisite and temporal limits). The wife’s reimbursement claim failed because the expenses were incurred outside the applicable time frame and she did not adequately rebut the husband’s affidavit.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: de novo for a section 2-619 dismissal and contract interpretation.
- Contract principles: a valid modification supersedes only inconsistent terms; it becomes a new integrated agreement composed of unchanged prior terms plus the new terms. The court found the 2012 order simply reassigned payment responsibility and did not, by its plain language, alter the 2010 judgment’s limit on duration or the educability condition.
- Procedural posture under 2-619: where a defendant supports an affirmative defense with affidavit evidence, the plaintiff must file a counteraffidavit to avoid admission of those facts. Husband’s affidavit showed payments were made outside the statutory/time limits; wife failed to rebut those facts.
- Court rejected speculative arguments about voluntary post-modification payments creating open-ended obligations and found appellant forfeited reliance on that theory by failing to cite authority.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Draft settlement/modification orders with explicit, unambiguous language about scope: specify whether preexisting substantive conditions (e.g., educability, time limits, consecutive years) are retained, modified, or waived.
- If intending to extend parental obligations beyond statutory age limits, expressly waive those statutory limits in writing.
- When opposing a section 2-619 motion supported by affidavit, promptly file a specific counteraffidavit and produce factual evidence; otherwise the movant’s facts may be deemed admitted.
- Preserve appellate issues with authority and avoid speculative arguments about voluntary payments — document intent contemporaneously (e.g., reservation/release language) and seek declaratory relief early.