In re Marriage of Januszewski, 2024 IL App (3d) 230184-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Januszewski, 2024 IL App (3d) 230184‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Jan. 12, 2024) (Sup. Ct. R. 23 — nonprecedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Theodore Januszewski. Respondent‑Appellant: Colleen Januszewski.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA), incorporated into the dissolution judgment, precluded modification or termination of permanent maintenance.
2) Whether the recipient had standing to seek declaratory judgment on modifiability.
3) Proper interpretation of ambiguous (or allegedly conflicting) MSA provisions (non‑modifiability clauses vs. life‑insurance/employment language).

- Holding / outcome
The Third District reversed the circuit court’s denial of declaratory relief and remanded. The appellate court held the MSA’s non‑modifiability provisions precluded modification of the permanent maintenance obligation.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standing: Court found declaratory‑judgment standing — respondent had a tangible legal interest (right to maintenance), petitioner had an opposing interest (motion to modify), and an actual controversy existed.
- Contract principles govern MSAs: interpretation is aimed at effectuating parties’ intent from the contract language; unambiguous terms receive their plain meaning; ambiguous terms permit extrinsic evidence. Review is de novo.
- The MSA expressly provided permanent maintenance of $2,742/month (Art. II §2.3) and contained broad non‑modifiability language (Art. X §10.1: “shall not be changed, modified or altered by any order of any Court…”; Art. XI §11.10: written amendment only). These provisions, read as a whole, barred court modification.
- Petitioner’s reliance on a life‑insurance/employment provision (Art. IV §4.1) did not create an ambiguity sufficient to override the non‑modifiability clauses: §4.1 referenced life insurance tied to both employment and “duty to provide maintenance,” and did not evidence an intent to make maintenance itself modifiable upon retirement. The court rejected petitioner’s attempted parsing that would render parts of the MSA superfluous.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
- If parties intend permanent, nonmodifiable maintenance, include explicit, broad non‑modifiability language and address contingencies (retirement, disability, loss of employment, life insurance termination) to avoid later disputes.
- Conversely, if modifiability is desired, expressly reserve court jurisdiction or include formula/trigger clauses (retirement, change in income).
- Draft MSAs holistically to avoid internal inconsistency; avoid provisions that could be read as creating implied exceptions.
- When opposing a post‑judgment modification, consider immediate declaratory relief and preserve the contractual record; appellate review of MSA interpretation is de novo.
- Note: this decision is Rule 23 nonprecedential; persuasive but not binding.