In re Marriage of McDowell, 2023 IL App (2d) 230081-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of McDowell, 2023 IL App (2d) 230081‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Nov. 2, 2023) (Rule 23(b) order; non‑precedential except as allowed).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Dennis McDowell (former husband). Respondent‑Appellee: Colleen McDowell (former wife).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying husband’s motion to modify/terminate permanent maintenance under 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5) given a substantial reduction in husband’s earned income.
- How the court should weigh non‑income assets (retirement accounts, inheritances, property) and other statutory factors in a modification proceeding.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in denying the motion to modify maintenance ($3,000/month) because, considering all statutory factors, husband failed to establish that he could not meet the obligation given his overall financial condition (including substantial retirement accounts and an imminent large inheritance).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard: modification requires a substantial change in circumstances and is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court must consider the factors listed in §510(a‑5) and §504(a) (income/property of each party, efforts to become self‑supporting, earning capacity, tax consequences, property division, duration/age, etc.).
- Although husband’s practice income had fallen (from $120,000 at dissolution to about $4,252/month gross in 2021) and he is older (68), the court considered his total financial picture: sizable retirement accounts (~$394,000), equity in residence and practice, and an anticipated inheritance of roughly $570,000–$600,000. Wife had also received significant inheritances previously (≈$215,000) and held investment accounts. The court found husband had adequate resources to continue payments without unduly compromising his needs.
- The court also weighed wife’s modest increase in income (part‑time caregiving), her choice not to pursue higher‑paying credentials, tax consequences, and the overall property division that slightly favored her.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- For movants seeking modification: show not just reduced earned income but inability to meet maintenance considering all assets (retirement accounts, inheritances, property). Disclose anticipated inheritances and account values; failure to disclose may be noticed by court.
- For responding parties: emphasize total asset picture, prior property division, tax effects, and realistic earning capacity (including age and retraining prospects).
- Discovery/affidavits: update and fully disclose retirement accounts, non‑liquid assets, and any pending testamentary transfers. Courts weigh overall financial condition, not income alone, when deciding maintenance modification motions.