In re Marriage of Lenahan, 2020 IL App (2d) 190989-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Lenahan, 2020 IL App (2d) 190989-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Oct. 28, 2020) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Mary Lenahan. Respondent‑Appellant: Richard Simko. Appeal from Kane County (dissolution entered Apr. 2013).

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by extending reviewable maintenance (originally $3,000/mo for 60 months) for an additional period at a reduced amount ($2,750/mo to Apr. 1, 2022), and how the statutory factors for reviewing maintenance (750 ILCS 5/504(a) and 5/510(a‑5)) should be applied where the maintenance recipient has substantially greater non‑liquid assets (inherited company stock and an unencumbered home) while the payor has higher earned income but significant debt and less financial asset value.

- Holding / outcome
Reversed. The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion in extending maintenance under the circumstances presented.

- Significant legal reasoning (short)
The court applied the statutory review factors and focused on the parties’ incomes, property, earning capacities, and the relative duration and purpose of maintenance. Although Richard earned substantially more ($~145,000/yr) and Mary had limited wage income (~$27,000/yr), Mary’s financial assets (~$666,000, including $644,735 in inherited Bloedorn Lumber stock and an unencumbered home) far exceeded Richard’s (~$158,000). The appellate court concluded that extending maintenance until Richard’s age 65 would impair his ability to save for retirement and was unreasonable given Mary’s substantial assets that could be liquidated or invested to generate replacement income. The court distinguished precedent (Cantrell, Andrew, Brunke) and stressed the need to balance preservation of a payor’s retirement savings against the recipient’s needs; here those equities favored denying the extension. The record lacked evidence on many statutory factors; no testimonial transcript was produced.

- Practice implications
- When seeking or opposing reviewable maintenance, build a full evidentiary record on asset values (marketability/liquidity), income, debts, retirement plans, and projected retirement needs; submit transcripts/bystander reports.
- Be prepared to argue liquidity and expected yield from inherited or ill‑performing assets (court may expect recipient to tap assets or invest to replace maintenance).
- Emphasize how continued maintenance affects payor’s retirement savings and propose alternatives (shorter term, graduated reduction, offset by lump sum, or security).
- Use the twin statutory frameworks (§504(a) and §510(a‑5)) and quantify impacts (total payments, effect on retirement projections) to show abuse of discretion where appropriate.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 order and not binding precedent except in limited circumstances.