In re Marriage of Lenahan, 2023 IL App (2d) 220138-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Lenahan, No. 2-22-0138 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Feb. 15, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Mary Lenahan. Respondent-Appellee: Richard Simko.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear Richard’s post‑appeal “Motion to Compel Reimbursement” after this court reversed an earlier order extending maintenance but did not remand.
- Whether Mary’s due process rights were violated by the trial court’s handling of the reimbursement proceeding.
- Whether the matter was barred by res judicata.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court had jurisdiction to enforce the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and ordered Mary to reimburse Richard $56,729.92 (maintenance paid after the 60‑month term). The court denied interest and attorney fees, reserved timing of repayment, and required exchange of 2019–2020 tax returns. Mary’s jurisdictional, res judicata and due process arguments were rejected (res judicata and due process forfeited).

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The appellate reversal of the trial court’s maintenance‑extension order did not preclude the filing of a new post‑dissolution enforcement claim. Family courts retain subject‑matter jurisdiction over postdissolution matters, and the dissolution judgment/MSA expressly reserved enforcement jurisdiction. Thus Rule 369/mandate principles (and cited cases where reversal-without-remand prevents reinstatement) did not bar Richard’s new pleading.
- Substance controls over form: although styled as a “motion to compel reimbursement,” Richard sought to enforce the MSA’s 60‑month maintenance limit — a matter squarely within the trial court’s retained enforcement powers (citing similar authority such as In re Marriage of Figliulo and In re Marriage of Kuyk).
- Procedural defenses (res judicata, due process) were forfeited: res judicata was not raised below; the due process argument lacked supporting authority and an adequate record. The court held a hearing, considered stipulated payment amounts, and left tax consequences to the parties to resolve by tax filings.

5) Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Preserve jurisdictional and res judicata defenses at the trial level — failure to do so forfeits appellate review.
- When an appellate court reverses without remand, counsel can still pursue enforcement remedies by filing new post‑dissolution motions grounded in the original judgment/MSA; retention clauses in MSAs are potent bases for enforcement.
- Substance matters more than caption: an enforcement motion will be treated as seeking to enforce the dissolution judgment.
- Anticipate tax issues when seeking reimbursement of maintenance; raise them clearly and with evidentiary support if relief is sought.
- Create a clear record (R.O.P.) of hearings and rulings, especially where “bifurcated” procedures or future financial recalculations may be needed.