In re Marriage of Morton, 2025 IL App (1st) 240777-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Morton, 2025 IL App (1st) 240777-U (1st Dist. Jan. 24, 2025) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Duane Morton (estate / represented by Duane III as POA/intervenor). Respondent-Appellant: Berretdus T. Morton.

2. Key legal issues
- Does a 2007 dissolution judgment require respondent to keep the parties’ children as beneficiaries of an existing Jackson National life insurance policy after the children turned 23?
- Was the trial court’s enforcement order (naming beneficiaries, repayment of loans against the policy, freezing/distribution of proceeds) and award of attorney’s fees proper?

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the judgment’s two life‑insurance provisions can be read together: the temporary child‑support/education policies lapsed at age 23, but the separate asset‑division clause (paragraph 13) independently required respondent to maintain the Jackson National policy with the children as beneficiaries. Trial court’s orders (to name the children beneficiaries, repay policy loans, freeze/distribute proceeds to a trust account, and award $3,063.92 in enforcement attorney’s fees) were affirmed.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Contract interpretation governs dissolution judgments; courts seek the court’s intent from the judgment’s plain language and interpret the document as a whole.
- The court rejected respondent’s argument that the more specific, terminable “Financial Provisions for the Children” clause (paragraph 4) controlled and nullified the later asset‑division clause (paragraph 13). Because both provisions can be given effect without conflict, the specific‑over‑general rule did not apply.
- Paragraph 4’s $25,000 minimum coverage obligation lapsed when the children reached 23; paragraph 13 imposed a separate, non‑lapsed duty to keep the Jackson National policy with the children as beneficiaries and did not create an impermissible perpetual obligation (it would terminate on the insured’s death).
- Attorney’s fees were proper under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) for enforcement where noncompliance lacked compelling justification.

5. Practice implications
- Draft dissolution provisions with precision: specify which policies, named beneficiaries, duration, survivorship events, and remedies for noncompliance (e.g., trustee designation, prohibition on encumbrance).
- If assigning an existing policy as part of property division, expressly state whether the obligation survives children reaching majority and whether it ends on death of either party.
- When enforcing benefit/designation clauses, pursue emergency relief (TRO, rule to show cause) and seek fee shifting under §508(b).
- Insurers and payees should seek court direction before paying contested sums; lenders and parties should document loans against policies and confirm whether encumbrances violate divorce orders.
- Appellate review of judgment interpretation is de novo; Rule 23 orders are non‑precedential except as provided by the rule.