In re Marriage of Kochis, 2019 IL App (4th) 180804-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kochis, 2019 IL App (4th) 180804-U (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., July 25, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Terrance E. Kochis. Respondent-Appellant: Lisa A. Bezely (f/k/a Lisa A. Kochis).

2. Key legal issues
- Was the notice of appeal timely (which order was the final, appealable judgment)?
- How should the parties’ 1998 marital settlement agreement (MSA) and the 1999 QILDRO be interpreted — did the MSA entitle the wife to a fixed $10,045.25 or to a monthly/fractional share of pension benefits?
- Was interest properly awarded, and if so, from what date?

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. Lisa’s notice of appeal was timely (filed within 30 days of the December 5, 2018 supplemental final judgment).
- The MSA unambiguously awarded Lisa $10,045.25 of the pension benefits; the trial court correctly enforced that plain term and vacated the inconsistent 1999 QILDRO.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding interest from the petitioner’s retirement date (May 27, 2016) through December 10, 2018 (interest calculated as $2,296.30).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Finality/appealability: The court applied established rules that a notice of appeal must be filed from the final order; supplemental judgment dated Dec. 5, 2018 was the final appealable order (explicitly labeled “final and appealable”), and the notice filed Dec. 11, 2018 was timely. Appellate courts construe notices of appeal liberally (citing Burtell and related authority).
- MSA interpretation: Contract principles govern MSA interpretation; where language is unambiguous, courts enforce its plain terms. The MSA expressly awarded “$10,045.25 of the pension benefits … which have accrued … during the parties’ marriage.” That express dollar figure controlled; the wife’s contrary reading (a 50% fractional monthly share) conflicted with the plain text.
- QILDRO conflict: The QILDRO did not select the monthly-payment option and was inconsistent with the MSA; the trial court permissibly vacated it upon satisfaction of the MSA award.
- Interest: The court found interest should run from the date benefits became payable (retirement), not from the 1998 dissolution judgment; appellate court found no abuse of discretion.

5. Practice implications (brief)
- Draft MSAs and QILDROs with precision: specify dollar vs. fractional shares, whether award is lump-sum or a stream, and the form of payment the alternate payee is to receive; match QILDRO check-boxes/options to the MSA.
- If TRS or other public pension rules impose form/consent requirements, address those contingencies in the MSA/QILDRO (and obtain necessary consents).
- When enforcing pension awards, expect courts to look to the plain language; ambiguous or incomplete QILDROs can be vacated if inconsistent.
- Track final-judgment dates and obtain explicit “final and appealable” language when necessary; file appeals promptly and remember courts will liberally construe notices of appeal in close cases.