In re Marriage of Jones, 2022 IL App (5th) 210104 — Summary for Attorneys

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Jones, 2022 IL App (5th) 210104.
- Petitioner-Appellee: Kelly N. Jones. Respondent-Appellant: Michael P. Jones. (Fifth District; appeal from St. Clair County.)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether private agreement provisions (1) forbidding future requests to modify child support and (2) imposing a retroactive “penalty” payment if a party seeks modification other than in limited circumstances, violate Illinois public policy by chilling a statutory right to petition the court for modification of child support.
- Whether such offending provisions are severable from the remainder of an agreed order (and, relatedly, whether collateral provisions should be struck).
- Whether the party seeking modification must be permitted an evidentiary hearing on the claimed triggering event (e.g., COVID-related income loss).

3) Holding / outcome (short)
- The Appellate Court affirmed in part and vacated in part. It agreed that provisions that effectively penalize or chill a party’s statutory right to seek modification are contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable. It vacated the trial court’s removal of certain other paragraphs and remanded for further proceedings (including correct severability analysis and any necessary evidentiary findings).

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court emphasized that parties cannot contractually bar or penalize the statutory right to seek modification of support; doing so would frustrate public policy favoring the court’s continuing jurisdiction over support and the nonwaivable nature of statutory remedies. A clause that conditions or punishes the filing of a modification petition (here: retroactive payment of the difference between prior and reduced support) operates as a penalty that deters access to the court and is therefore void.
- However, invalidating offending clauses does not automatically dispose of the entire agreement; courts must apply severability principles and determine whether the remainder of the agreement can stand as intended. The appellate court vacated the trial court’s deletion of unrelated paragraphs and remanded to perform that analysis and to address whether an evidentiary hearing is required on factual triggers (e.g., actual reduction in income).

5) Practice implications
- Do not draft “no-challenge” or penalty clauses that purport to bar or punish a party for filing a statutory petition to modify support — they risk being void as contrary to public policy.
- If seeking finality, use narrowly tailored, enforceable mechanisms (e.g., express waiver language where legally permissible, explicit findings of agreement-based obligations, or settlement language that contemplates court approval and preserves statutory rights).
- Include a severability clause and consider drafting fallback provisions stating what happens if a particular term is invalidated.
- When litigating, be prepared for trial courts to (1) void penalizing language, (2) conduct a severability inquiry, and (3) require evidentiary hearings on claimed triggering events (e.g., income loss).