In re Marriage of Pica, 2019 IL App (3d) 180713-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Pica, 2019 IL App (3d) 180713‑U (3d Dist. Oct. 24, 2019) (Rule 23 order; not precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellant: Tolan M. Pica. Respondent/Appellee: LaDonna J. Pica. Divorce originally in Virginia; Judgment enrolled in Knox County, Illinois.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s petition to modify spousal maintenance (reduce $2,800/mo to $1,000 and set a termination date).
- Governing law question: MSA stated spousal maintenance was "fully modifiable under Virginia law"; application of VA law and VA Code §20‑109C (precluding deviation from a premarital/settlement contract).
- Whether petitioner proved a material change in circumstances occurring after the decree and sufficiently affecting respondent’s need or petitioner’s ability to pay.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the circuit court did not err in denying the modification petition.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard/deference: Virginia law governs; trial court rulings on maintenance modification reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Legal test (Virginia): movant must prove a material change in circumstances occurring after the most recent judicial review and that the change warrants modification because it affects financial need or ability to pay. Changes that were foreseeable at the time of the agreement may defeat modification claims.
- Facts weighed: respondent’s relocation to Illinois had been disclosed before the Virginia decree; parties’ MSA anticipated military retirement benefits (USFSPA allocation of half of retiree pay to respondent) and contemplated living/earning expectations; respondent’s receipt of military retirement pay was not treated as an unforeseeable windfall; petitioner’s early retirement was, in the court’s view, not a material change justifying reduction. Trial court found no evidence of a post‑decree material change or, alternatively, that any changes benefited respondent and did not warrant reduction. Appellate court deferred to those factual and credibility determinations.

5) Practice implications
- Draft MSAs with clear, explicit treatment of military retirement (including early retirement contingencies), spousal maintenance modifiability, and cost‑of‑living/place of residence assumptions.
- If expecting future events (move, retirement), explicitly allocate risk/benefit and address foreseeability to limit later modification claims.
- Preserve factual record at trial on foreseeability, timing of moves, income streams, and how retirement income interacts with maintenance.
- Be mindful of choice‑of‑law provisions and enrollment consequences when parties move jurisdictions; trial courts get deference on mixed legal/factual maintenance determinations.