In re Marriage of Osseck, 2021 IL App (2d) 200268

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Osseck, 2021 IL App (2d) 200268. Petitioner-Appellee: Steven J. Osseck. Respondent-Appellant: Toni R. Osseck.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court’s March 6, 2020 order modifying permanent maintenance was final and appealable.
2) Whether petitioner proved a “substantial change in circumstances” warranting modification based on a company-wide compensation restructure and resulting income decrease.
3) Whether the trial court adequately applied the statutory factors in 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5) and 5/504(a) when recalculating maintenance.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court held the March 6, 2020 order was final and appealable. It affirmed the trial court’s finding that a substantial change in circumstances existed, but vacated the modified maintenance award and remanded for further proceedings because the trial court failed to adequately consider and articulate the required statutory factors. Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
• Finality: The court rejected the argument that a modification order is unappealable because it was temporary or subject to future review; the order altered the parties’ substantive rights and therefore was final and appealable.
• Substantial change: The evidence supported a substantial change — the employer’s post-sale compensation plan converted all-commission pay to a $250,000 base with heavily performance-based quarterly/annual bonuses, “bridge” payments that would phase out by 2021, and an overall cap. Steven’s earnings declined in the latter half of 2019 and his 2020 prospects were demonstrably reduced. Documentary evidence (company plan, pay charts, sales figures) corroborated the testimony.
• Inadequate statutory analysis: Although a change was proven, the trial court did not adequately apply or explain its analysis under 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5) and 5/504(a) (factors such as each spouse’s income, property, needs, duration of marriage, contributions, tax consequences, and ability to be self-supporting). The absence of explicit findings and factor-by-factor consideration required vacatur and remand.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
• When seeking modification based on compensation changes, develop contemporaneous documentary proof: employer plan documents, paystubs, bonus formulas, sales history, and realistic forecasts.
• When opposing, attack speculative projections, highlight asset growth/other resources, and press for evidentiary detail on bonuses and bridge payments.
• Ask the trial court to make explicit, written findings addressing each §504(a) and §510(a-5) factor (and retroactivity) — appellate relief is likely where the court fails to do so.
• Note: modification orders that materially change maintenance are appealable even if subject to later review. Consider percentage-of-income proposals for highly variable compensation, but ensure the court analyzes statutory factors before adopting such formulas.