In re Marriage of Koenig, 2012 IL App (2d) 110503

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Koenig, 2012 IL App (2d) 110503 (Apr. 27, 2012). Petitioner-Appellant: Joyce P. Koenig. Respondent-Appellee: James E. Koenig.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether a marital settlement agreement that assigns the parties’ financial responsibility for a child’s college/post‑graduate expenses (but does not specify dollar amounts, percentages, or a formula) constitutes an explicit reservation under 750 ILCS 5/513 such that a later petition for contribution is treated as a modification under 750 ILCS 5/510 and barred from recovering expenses incurred before the petition.
2) Whether Petersen v. Petersen and related cases control where the agreement imposes an obligation rather than expressly reserving the issue.

- Holding / outcome
The Second District reversed and remanded. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for respondent and barring petitioner from seeking contribution for pre‑petition college and law‑school expenses. Because the settlement agreement imposed the parties’ obligation to pay (it “assigned” responsibility) rather than expressly reserving the question to the court under §513, Petersen’s rule did not apply to bar retroactive contribution.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court distinguished Petersen (and later Petersen on appeal) where the dissolution judgment expressly reserved the parents’ college‑expense obligations under §513; in Petersen the reservation meant a later allocation petition was a §510 modification and therefore could not reach pre‑petition expenses. Here, Article VII of the parties’ settlement agreement affirmatively obligated both parents to pay Tiffany’s university and postgraduate expenses (subject to conditions) rather than merely reserving the issue. Enforcement of an existing contractual obligation does not constitute a §510 modification that “adjust[s], change[s] or alter[s]” obligations entered in a judgment. The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo and relied on Spircoff as supportive authority distinguishing reservation cases from agreements that impose duty.

- Practice implications for family-law counsel
- Draft settlement agreements with precision: if parties intend to retain court flexibility (and bar retroactive claims), expressly reserve contribution under §513; if they intend binding mutual obligations, explicitly state amounts, percentages, formulas, or clear allocation rules to avoid future disputes.
- When litigating contribution claims, emphasize whether the decree/agreement imposed an obligation (enforceable contract) or merely reserved the issue to the court — this distinction determines whether retroactive relief is available.
- Consider timing of petitions: Petersen bars recovery for pre‑petition costs only when the court has reserved the issue; otherwise, retroactive enforcement may be sought.