In re Marriage of Marquez, 2020 IL App (1st) 200180-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Marquez, No. 1-20-0180, 2020 IL App (1st) 200180-U (Oct. 20, 2020) (Sup. Ct. R. 23 order — non-precedential).
- Fidel Marquez, Jr. (petitioner/appellant) v. Victoria J. Marquez (respondent/appellee).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to terminate spousal maintenance following his retirement.
- Whether excluding petitioner’s untimely financial affidavit (local rule violation) was inequitable or reversible error.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition to terminate maintenance; the record lacked evidence that petitioner’s retirement materially affected his ability to pay. The exclusion of the untimely financial affidavit did not warrant reversal.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Modification/termination of maintenance requires proof of a “substantial change in circumstances” under 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5). The moving party bears the burden of proof.
- Courts must evaluate statutory factors (510(a-5) and the initial-award factors in 750 ILCS 5/504(a)) — including employment changes, good faith of the change, earning capacity, needs of the parties, duration of payments, retirement and other income sources, tax consequences, and any other just and equitable considerations.
- Whether retirement alone constitutes a substantial change depends on context: age, health, motive and timing of retirement, ability to pay post-retirement, and the former spouse’s ability to be self-supporting. A mere decrease in income from retirement, without evidence that it impairs the retiree’s ability to meet maintenance obligations, is insufficient. The court relied on those principles and concluded the petitioner presented no evidence demonstrating an inability to continue payments after retirement.
- The trial court’s exclusion of the late financial affidavit (Cook County Rule 13.3.1(b)) left the petitioner without documentary proof of changed financial circumstances; the appellate court found no abuse in that evidentiary ruling in the circumstances.

5) Practice implications
- When seeking modification/termination based on retirement, counsel must present concrete financial proof (pension amounts, assets, cash flow projections, tax impact) and address retirement motive/timing and capacity to pay.
- Strictly comply with local discovery and affidavit-exchange rules — untimely financial affidavits risk exclusion and can be dispositive.
- Anticipate the court’s multipronged statutory analysis: build a record on both parties’ needs, earning capacities, duration of payments, and any property/retirement awards.
- If retirement was contemplated at dissolution or the judgment contains special termination language, acknowledge and distinguish that context in briefs and testimony.