In re Marriage of Hardy, 2019 IL App (2d) 180303-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Hardy, No. 2-18-0303, 2019 IL App (2d) 180303-U (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 28, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant: Kristin D. Hardy (f/k/a Kristin D. Jury). Respondent‑Appellee: Keith R. Jury.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court properly adjusted maintenance (amount, term, and form) on review/remand under 750 ILCS 5/504(a) and 5/510(a)(5).
2. Whether periodic maintenance could be converted to maintenance in gross and/or terminated or reduced given the recipient’s earning capacity, efforts at self‑sufficiency, and the parties’ marital standard of living.
3. Whether the court on remand made the required explicit balancing (on the record) of the statutory factors, including lifestyle during the marriage versus the recipient’s ability to become self‑sufficient.

- Holding / outcome
The Second District affirmed the trial court’s written order awarding Kristin permanent maintenance of $5,000 per month (retroactive to March 20, 2015). The appellate court corrected a scrivener’s error in the trial order (date) and affirmed the amount as appropriate to meet Kristin’s reduced needs relative to her marital lifestyle.

- Significant legal reasoning
This appeal followed two prior remands (Jury I and Jury II) directing the trial court to apply and explicitly balance the statutory maintenance factors and to assess Kristin’s ability to attain self‑sufficiency against the likelihood she could maintain some approximation of the marital standard of living. After considering the parties’ stipulations, vocational and psychological evidence (including testing showing reading/math disorders and expert vocational projections), and testimony about Kristin’s educational progress, reduced expenses, and earning history, the trial court concluded permanent maintenance was appropriate. The appellate court affirmed that conclusion—finding the evidence supported that Kristin would never be able to earn a salary sufficient to approximate the marital standard of living and that $5,000/month was a just award given her demonstrated needs and limitations. The opinion reiterates the obligation to evaluate all statutory factors on remand and to explain the balancing on the record.

- Practice implications (concise)
- On maintenance review/remand, courts must explicitly address and balance the statutory factors (750 ILCS 5/504, 5/510) on the record, including marital lifestyle evidence.
- Vocational and psychological evidence (earning capacity, learning disabilities, realistic timelines for retraining) can be outcome‑determinative.
- Trial courts should carefully justify conversions between periodic maintenance and maintenance in gross and correct scrivener’s errors.
- Parties should present detailed, corroborated financial records and expert reports when arguing termination, reduction, or extension of maintenance.
- Because this is a Rule 23 order, citation is limited per Rule 23(e)(1).