In re Marriage of Mostofi, 2022 IL App (1st) 210324-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Mostofi, 2022 IL App (1st) 210324‑U. Petitioner‑Appellee: Laura Mostofi. Respondent‑Appellant: C. John Mostofi. (1st Dist., May 13, 2022; Rule 23 non‑precedential order.)

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court misinterpreted the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) governing maintenance modifiability.
2. Whether respondent’s annual income had fallen below the $1.2 million threshold in the MSA (thus permitting modification).
3. Whether respondent proved a “substantial change in circumstances” warranting maintenance modification.
4. Standard of review for modification denials (abuse of discretion).

- Holding/outcome
The Appellate Court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying John’s motion to modify maintenance.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court applied the MSA’s plain terms: maintenance was “non‑reviewable” except upon a substantial change and specifically provided that John could petition for reduction only if his income dropped below $1.2 million. The appellate panel emphasized that the party seeking modification bears the burden to prove the contractual trigger and a substantial change. The trial court’s factual findings — that John had not shown his annual income fell below $1.2 million and that he failed to establish a substantial, involuntary change in circumstances — were supported by the record (W‑2s, testimony about deferred compensation/vested stock, investment income, and John’s voluntary resignation). The court also noted credibility and timing factors (John filed his petition before he left Bank of America, later made significant expenditures, and had opportunities to mitigate). Because the denial rested on permissible factual findings and reasonable application of the MSA, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Draft MSA modifiability clauses with precision: define “income” (base, bonuses, deferred comp, stock vesting, investment income) and the measurement period (calendar year, trailing 12 months).
- Allocate burden of proof and evidentiary items (W‑2s, bonus letters, deferred compensation statements) and require periodic disclosure or trigger audits.
- Anticipate and litigate the effect of voluntary resignation or self‑inflicted income reduction; courts scrutinize good faith and mitigation efforts.
- Use timing and conduct (post‑petition purchases, board stipends, vested stock) to attack credibility or defend a modification request.
- Preserve findings for appeal by ensuring the trial court makes explicit factual findings about income computation and change‑of‑circumstances.