In re Marriage of Koss, 2019 IL App (4th) 180763-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Koss, 2019 IL App (4th) 180763‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist. Sept. 6, 2019) (Rule 23 non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant: Michelle Koss. Respondent‑Appellee: Brett Koss.

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding non‑guideline rehabilitative maintenance (36 months at $800/mo) instead of permanent or guideline maintenance, given the length of the marriage, the parties’ incomes, health, education, assets, and rehabilitative prospects.

- Holding / outcome
The Fourth District affirmed. The appellate court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding rehabilitative maintenance for 36 months at $800 per month.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court applied the abuse‑of‑discretion standard and deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations. The trial court made detailed findings on: long marriage (~24 years, 1993–2017); petitioner’s limited work history while raising children; petitioner’s December 2010 bachelor’s degree and subsequent limited employment as a substitute teacher (earning roughly $8–9k/yr); petitioner’s health complaints (back issues, migraines) and the court’s skepticism about their severity; respondent’s income and state pension; limited marital retirement assets; temporary maintenance history ($800/mo) and competing tax debts and liabilities. Petitioner proposed an associate certificate (library technician) with a multi‑year completion plan and testified she anticipated improved earnings; the court viewed that plan as rehabilitative and chose a three‑year maintenance term. The appellate court emphasized that the trial court properly weighed statutory factors and credibility evidence and thus its maintenance decision was within the permissible range.

- Practice implications
- Trial courts have wide discretion on maintenance; appellate courts will not disturb fact‑intensive decisions grounded in credibility and statutory factor balancing.
- For petitioners seeking more than rehabilitative maintenance, present persuasive, documented proof of continuing incapacity or realistic earnings projections to justify permanent maintenance.
- For rehabilitative awards, submit a concrete vocational/education plan (costs, timeline, anticipated earnings), medical records quantifying limitations, and clear income/expense schedules.
- Preserve transcripts and a full record of contested hearings; credibility findings and detailed factual findings are decisive on appeal.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 order (non‑citable precedent except in limited circumstances).