In re Marriage of Paice, 2022 IL App (2d) 210432-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Paice, 2022 IL App (2d) 210432‑U (2d Dist. June 27, 2022). Petitioner‑Appellee: Diane M. Paice. Respondent‑Appellant: John W. Paice.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether a payor’s contractual obligation to maintain life insurance “so long as he has an obligation to pay spousal maintenance” survives a court order that terminates the payor’s maintenance obligation.
2) Whether the trial court erred (or abused its discretion) in denying relief to terminate the life‑insurance obligation after terminating maintenance. Interpretation of a marital settlement agreement (MSA) and application of IMDMA § 504(f).

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court reversed. It held the trial court abused its discretion by requiring John to continue maintaining life insurance for Diane after terminating his spousal maintenance obligation; the insurance obligation was extinguished when maintenance was terminated.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court applied contract interpretation principles (MSA construed like any other contract; intent from plain language; de novo review) and statutory construction of IMDMA § 504(f). The MSA expressly conditioned the life‑insurance obligation on the existence of a maintenance obligation (“so long as he has an obligation to pay spousal maintenance”). Although an earlier (Dec. 16, 2011) agreed order had reduced maintenance to $0 and made the insurance obligation “modifiable,” the trial court’s February 9, 2021 order subsequently terminated maintenance entirely. Once maintenance was terminated, there was no longer “an award of maintenance” that could be secured by life insurance under § 504(f). The appellate court rejected the trial court’s view that the 2011 agreed order bound the payor to continue premiums forever, concluding instead that the parties’ express conditional language controlled and extinguished the insurance duty when maintenance ended.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Draft MSAs with clear survivability language if parties intend insurance to survive termination of maintenance (e.g., separate covenant, fixed term, or explicit survivability clause).
- When seeking a maintenance termination, also move to terminate any related security provisions (insurance) unless you want them to survive.
- If a client wants continued protection post‑maintenance, convert the obligation into a stand‑alone contractual duty or escrow/other security not tied to maintenance.
- Review agreed orders carefully: “modifiable” language may not preserve an obligation that was expressly conditioned on maintenance.
- For appellate review, note that contract/statutory interpretation is de novo; preserve arguments in trial court and include full record of hearings.