In re Marriage of Oswald, 2023 IL App (3d) 220018-U

- Case: In re Marriage of Oswald, 2023 IL App (3d) 220018‑U (Order filed Mar. 16, 2023) (Sup. Ct. R. 23 — non‑precedential).
- Parties: Petitioner‑Appellee David Oswald; Respondent‑Appellant Julie E. Oswald.

Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in modifying maintenance and child support where one party’s income materially increased after an agreed order.
- Proper application of: (a) the “substantial change in circumstances” standard for modification (750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5)); and (b) the statutory maintenance factors in §504(a) when considering modification.

Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The court found a substantial, not‑contemplated increase in Julie’s income and recalculated support: child support rose modestly (from $1,022 to $1,073/month) and maintenance was reduced to $0 (modified, not terminated), with ongoing income production required.

Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: modification of maintenance is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The movant must show a substantial change in circumstances.
- Evidence: Julie’s gross income rose from about $51,000 at judgment to over $200,000 within three years — a near 3.5× increase. The 2018 agreed order did not preclude future modification nor require continued exchange of financials.
- Statutory framework: the trial court appropriately applied §510(a‑5) and reconsidered the §504(a) factors (income/property, earning capacity, needs, duration, standard of living, etc.). The court used three‑year average incomes for both parties (David ≈ $173,000; Julie ≈ $124,000) in recalculating support pursuant to the Act.
- Appellate court found the record supported the trial court’s factual findings and calculations and therefore no abuse of discretion.

Practice implications
- Agreed orders: if parties intend to make a support order non‑modifiable, expressly state that and ensure the order is drafted to withstand statutory modification arguments — absent such language, courts may find modification appropriate.
- Income verification: when incomes include commissions, bonuses, self‑employment receipts, or variable seasonal earnings, use multi‑year averages and specify treatment of business expenses, bonuses, health‑insurance allocations, and joint tax filings in the agreement.
- Litigation posture: movants should document substantial change (quantify increases/decreases, show non‑contemplation at entry) and be prepared for courts to require ongoing disclosures even if maintenance is reduced to $0.
- Drafting tip: include clear formulas, caps, and procedures for annual or event‑triggered recalculation to reduce future disputes.

Note: Rule 23 order — persuasive but not precedential outside narrow circumstances.