In re Marriage of Li, 2019 IL App (3d) 180214-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Li, 2019 IL App (3d) 180214-U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. June 19, 2019) (Sup. Ct. R. 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Sun M. Li. Respondent‑Appellee: Fanghwa Wang.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding permanent maintenance to the husband by allegedly relying solely on his age/retirement status rather than considering all statutory factors under 750 ILCS 5/504(a).
- Whether the husband’s criminal conviction and arguably forced/early retirement undermined entitlement to maintenance or required different treatment.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion and properly considered the statutory maintenance factors. Trial court ordered petitioner (Sun) to pay respondent (Fanghwa) $2,735.83/month in permanent maintenance.

4. Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Standard of review: abuse of discretion. Appellate court will not reweigh section 504 factors absent abuse.
- The trial court explicitly addressed multiple section 504(a) factors (income/property, needs, earning capacity, duration of marriage, standard of living, health/age/retirement income, contributions to the other’s career, etc.). The parties were married ~28 years and had a roughly $2M marital estate. Husband was 67 and had retired in 2016 after pleading guilty to domestic battery; he received Social Security and an annuity (~$2,800/month combined). Wife was 59, earning ~$132,000 at the USPTO and had more remaining earning years.
- Court found husband had limited post‑retirement employability (age, health, criminal record), had worked his whole adult life, and the parties’ lifestyle and mutual support over the marriage supported equalizing maintenance. The court rejected the claim that the domestic battery conviction alone should negate maintenance because misconduct is not a listed statutory factor; moreover, wife produced no evidence quantifying what husband’s retirement benefits would have been had he delayed retirement.
- Given the record, the appellate court concluded the trial court did not rely exclusively on age nor create a per se age rule.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Trial courts have broad discretion on maintenance; expressly tie findings to specific 504(a) factors in the record to withstand appellate review.
- Where retirement or forced/early retirement is at issue, develop affirmative evidence quantifying (actual and hypothetical) pension/retirement losses and employability to dispute or justify maintenance awards.
- Criminal misconduct may be relevant to financial consequences (e.g., termination) but is not a standalone statutory factor—link it to income, employability, or asset diminution.
- Make the court’s analysis explicit: list the statutory factors considered and the evidentiary basis for each to prevent reversible error.