In re Marriage of O'Hara, 2022 IL App (2d) 210593-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of O’Hara, 2022 IL App (2d) 210593‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Aug. 26, 2022) (Rule 23 order). Plaintiff‑Appellant: Joann O’Hara. Defendant‑Appellee: David O’Hara.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether respondent met the statutory requirement to show a “substantial change in circumstances” under 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5) to modify/terminate maintenance.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering termination of maintenance retroactive to the date the petition to terminate was filed and by cancelling the life‑insurance security requirement.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s factual finding that a substantial change in circumstances supported termination/modification of maintenance (manifest‑weight review). It reversed, however, the retroactive termination to the date of filing (abuse of discretion), vacated related retroactive relief (including life‑insurance cancellation to the extent tied to the retroactive termination), and remanded for entry of an appropriate effective date and further proceedings as needed.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court applied section 510(a‑5) (only upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances) and reviewed factual findings for manifest weight. Evidence supporting change included: David’s reduced employment contract/salary beginning 2020 (approx. $120,000 annual reduction from prior base), his receipt of a $400,000 “tail‑end” payment (nonmarital per dissolution), and Joann’s increased liquid assets and income streams (substantial asset holdings, an annuity purchased to begin distributions in Jan. 2020, IRAs and RMDs). The trial court reasonably concluded Joann had sufficient assets/income to sustain her post‑divorce lifestyle and therefore maintenance was terminable — a conclusion not against the manifest weight. But the court abused its discretion in making termination retroactive to the petition filing date because at that earlier time David still had significant salary and the record did not support eliminating maintenance retroactively while the obligor retained present earning capacity and was still making payments. The appellate court therefore required a reconsideration of the effective date.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- When seeking termination/modification, carefully develop timing evidence showing when the obligor’s ability to pay actually changed (contracts, last pay dates, retirement effective dates, post‑change income). Retroactive termination requires proof the change existed as of the retroactive date.
- When defending, document need and timing of reliance on maintenance (budget, unrepaired home, counsel/financial planner testimony on distributions, ongoing payments) to oppose retroactivity.
- Preserve evidence about nonmarital receipts (e.g., tail payments) and security provisions (life insurance) because their characterization affects availability and timing of relief.
- Be mindful of standards of review: factual findings (manifest weight) are hard to overturn; remedy/effective date determinations are more readily reversed as abuse of discretion.