In re Marriage of Miller, 2022 IL App (2d) 210608-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Miller, 2022 IL App (2d) 210608-U. Petitioner-Appellant: Lorena K. Miller. Respondent-Appellee: Jeffrey A. Miller. (Appeal from Kane County; Order filed Sept. 7, 2022 under Rule 23.)

- Key legal issues
1. Whether post‑judgment orders and an “agreed” filing altered or terminated a prior dissolution judgment that awarded permanent maintenance as a percentage of the husband’s gross income.
2. Whether the trial court properly granted the husband declaratory relief (construing the parties’ orders to reduce/terminate maintenance) and denied the wife’s declaratory relief and her motion to reinstate/modify maintenance.
3. Proper treatment of post‑decree compensation (bonuses, stock grants/options) in calculating maintenance and the procedural requirements for modifying maintenance.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court held the trial court erred in granting the husband’s declaratory relief and denying the wife’s. The order denying the wife’s motion to reinstate maintenance or to modify the judgment was vacated. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded with directions.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court reviewed the 2007 dissolution judgment, the 2008 amended order (which converted the maintenance formula to specified percentages of the husband’s gross employment income and expressly addressed post‑decree grants/options), and the 2011 “modified order for support” that reflected a $3,000 monthly maintenance amount entered after a motion the wife did not oppose in person. The appellate panel focused on the chronological text of the judgments and the procedural posture of the 2011 filing, concluding the trial court misinterpreted those post‑judgment documents and improperly granted declaratory relief to the husband. Because the 2008 order established the permanent percentage formula (subject to statutory termination provisions), the later ministerial/administrative filings and the 2011 paperwork did not lawfully extinguish or rewrite the court’s maintenance directive without proper procedure. The appellate court therefore vacated the trial court’s resolution and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the correct construction of the prior orders.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- Draft and sign post‑judgment orders carefully; expressly state whether an order is intended to modify or merely implement an existing judgment.
- Preserve meaningful appearance/consent records when presenting “agreed” or stipulated orders; a party’s nonappearance or lack of express written consent can be fatal to claims that maintenance was modified by agreement.
- When maintenance is percentage‑based and tied to compensation (bonuses, options, grants), explicitly define included/excluded income and timing for “true‑up” payments to avoid later disputes.
- Seek a formal hearing/clear written stipulation when changing maintenance terms to avoid later declaratory‑relief litigation.