In re Marriage of Hyman, 2023 IL App (2d) 220347-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Hyman, 2023 IL App (2d) 220347-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., May 3, 2023) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellant: Bruce D. Hyman. Respondent‑Appellee: Joanne L. Hyman.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court erred by refusing to account for anticipated future reductions in husband’s disability income when setting current maintenance.
2) Proper effective date for the maintenance reduction.
3) Whether husband’s contractual obligation in the marital settlement agreement (MSA) to contribute to children’s higher‑education expenses could be reduced.
4) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding contribution to wife’s attorney fees.

- Holding / outcome
The Second District affirmed. The trial court did not err in (a) applying guideline maintenance using current income and declining to pre‑calculate reductions based on future benefit expirations; (b) setting the effective date of the maintenance reduction to January 1, 2021 (and ordering husband to pay his MSA share of a 2020 bonus); (c) enforcing husband’s agreed contributions to college expenses; and (d) awarding wife $30,567.94 toward attorney fees.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Modification framework: the court reiterated that a movant must first show a substantial change under §510(a‑5). Once modification is warranted, the amount/duration is normally calculated by the statutory guideline formulas in §504(b‑1)(1), unless the court expressly finds guidelines inappropriate and explains why. The trial court followed that structure.
- Future income reductions: section §504(b‑1)(2) (consideration of §504(a) factors) applies only when the court rejects guideline calculation. Here the court properly used current incomes under the guideline formula and refused to speculate about income years away from termination of private disability benefits.
- Effective date and remedies: the trial court changed the effective date to Jan 1, 2021 consistent with husband’s own closing request and ordered payment of the contractual share of the 2020 bonus.
- MSA enforcement and fees: the court enforced the MSA college‑expense obligations based on husband’s demonstrated liquidity and expenditures and held awarding fees appropriate under the circumstances.

- Practice implications (practical takeaways)
- Courts will ordinarily use current income to compute guideline maintenance; avoid relying solely on anticipated future benefit expirations to obtain pre‑set future reductions. Bring concrete, contemporaneous evidence if seeking below‑guideline maintenance.
- If you want prospective changes tied to known future events, present a full evidentiary record and ask the court explicitly to make findings rejecting guideline calculation.
- Preserve arguments on effective retroactivity at trial (closing requests control).
- MSAs allocating college costs are enforceable; evidence of the paying party’s discretionary spending can undercut requests to reduce contractual obligations.
- Disparity in resources and litigation conduct remain factors supporting contribution to attorney fees—document resources and litigation expenses carefully.