In re Marriage of Grimm, 2019 IL App (3d) 170840-U

- Case: In re Marriage of Grimm, 2019 IL App (3d) 170840‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. July 19, 2019).
Note: Filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23 — non‑precedential/unpublished except as Rule 23(e)(1) allows.

1) Parties
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Debra M. Grimm
- Respondent‑Appellant: Thomas L. Grimm

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court may use the post‑2015 statutory maintenance guidelines (750 ILCS 5/504(b‑1)(1) (West 2016)) to calculate amount and duration of maintenance in a post‑dissolution review/modification proceeding.
- Whether increased maintenance awarded on review may be made retroactive to a date earlier than the filing date of the moving party’s petition (i.e., what is the earliest permissible retroactivity under 750 ILCS 5/510).

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court reversed and remanded. The trial court erred in (1) applying section 504(b‑1)(1)’s guidelines to set amount and duration in a maintenance review/modification and (2) making the maintenance award retroactive to February 2, 2016 (the date respondent filed certain petitions) rather than to the date that provided proper “due notice” from the moving party. The cause was remanded for recalculation consistent with section 504(a) and section 510.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Section 510(a‑5) (post‑dissolution review context) requires the trial court to consider the factors in section 504(a) when reviewing maintenance; it does not incorporate the formulaic guidelines of section 504(b‑1). The appellate panel relied on statutory text and precedent (including In re Marriage of Kuper and Harms) to conclude that 504(b‑1)(1)—a guideline intended to assist initial determinations of amount/duration at dissolution—does not apply to subsequent modification proceedings.
- On retroactivity, the court applied 750 ILCS 5/510(a): only installments accruing after “due notice” of the moving party’s filing may be modified. Thus retroactivity cannot be set earlier than the date that the moving party properly put the non‑moving party on notice.

5) Practice implications
- For post‑dissolution maintenance reviews/modifications, litigants and courts must calculate amount/duration by applying the section 504(a) factors, not the section 504(b‑1) guideline formulas.
- Pleadings matter for retroactivity: to seek retroactive relief, file the appropriate modification/review petition and ensure the respondent receives due notice; opposing counsel should contest any retroactivity earlier than the moving party’s filing/notice date.
- Cite and distinguish Kuper, Harms and related authority when arguing interplay between section 504(a), 504(b‑1), and section 510 in modification actions.