In re Marriage of Kasprzyk, 2019 IL App (4th) 170838

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Kasprzyk, 2019 IL App (4th) 170838. Petitioner-Appellant: Mark J. Kasprzyk; Respondent-Appellee: Marianne Kasprzyk.

- Key legal issues
1) Which version of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act applies when a former spouse petitions to extend maintenance: the law in effect at the time of the original dissolution or the law in effect at the time of the review/extension?
2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in extending and converting limited-term maintenance into continuing (permanent) maintenance.

- Holding / outcome
The Fourth District affirmed. The trial court permissibly applied the post‑dissolution statutory scheme (including the amended maintenance framework) and did not abuse its discretion in extending maintenance. The court ordered maintenance at $450 per month and made it continuing, subject to modification/termination under 750 ILCS 5/510.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The appellate court agreed with the trial court that a petition to extend maintenance is a review proceeding governed by current law at the time of review; therefore the post‑dissolution amendments and relevant factors (sections 504(a) and 510(a‑5)) could be applied.
- The court emphasized that maintenance awards remain reviewable and that review proceedings are distinct from modification proceedings; a judgment that reserved review does not lock in the prior statutory framework indefinitely when subsequent changes are enacted and a review petition is filed.
- On the merits, the trial court weighed the statutory factors (length of marriage, income disparity, needs, earning capacity, retirement assets, etc.). The court credited evidence that respondent’s needs persisted, the parties’ relative incomes remained disparate, and that converting to continuing maintenance was appropriate given the marriage length and circumstances. Testimony of charitable donations was insufficient to rebut ongoing need. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the factual balancing or the $450/month award.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- When seeking or defending maintenance extensions, be prepared to litigate under the statutory regime in force at the time of the review petition; preserve retroactivity arguments if appropriate.
- Build a clear evidentiary record on current needs, earning capacity, assets (including retirement) and prior standard of living; courts may convert short-term awards to continuing maintenance where disparities persist.
- Document non‑taxable cash outflows (gifts/tithes) if relied upon to negate need — testimonial evidence may be credited but is vulnerable without corroboration.
- Expect appellate deference: extension/continuation decisions will be reviewed for abuse of discretion.