In re Marriage of Podolsky, 2022 IL App (5th) 210195-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Podolsky, 2022 IL App (5th) 210195-U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist. Apr. 29, 2022) (Rule 23 order; not precedent except as allowed by Rule 23). Petitioner–Appellee: Rita Podolsky. Respondent–Appellant: Michael D. Podolsky.

- Key legal issues
Whether an MSA provision requiring any amendment to be in writing (“No oral Agreement…”) but containing the prefatory clause “Except as otherwise provided for in Section 502 of the [Act]” precludes a court-ordered (statutory) modification of maintenance under 750 ILCS 5/502(f); and whether the trial court properly dismissed the husband’s maintenance-modification motion under section 2-619.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and denial of reconsideration, concluding the MSA’s “except” language imported section 502(f). The cause was remanded for a hearing to determine whether the husband established a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of maintenance.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court applied de novo review of the contract/MSA and statutory construction. It parsed the MSA clause that expressly referenced “Section 502” and analyzed each subsection of section 502. Reading “except” in its ordinary sense, the court concluded the parties intended the qualification to incorporate section 502(f) — which permits parties to make maintenance non‑modifiable but otherwise preserves the statutory rule that maintenance is modifiable on a substantial change in circumstances. Thus, because the MSA did not unequivocally make maintenance non‑modifiable (it merely required written amendment “except as otherwise provided for in Section 502”), the trial court erred in treating maintenance as categorically non‑modifiable and in dismissing the statutory modification petition. The opinion discusses In re Marriage of Schweitzer and distinguishes it, and notes Dynako’s relevance, but bases the decision on the statutory text and ordinary meaning of “except.”

- Practice implications (concise)
- Draft MSA non‑modification clauses with explicit, unmistakable language if parties intend to bar statutory modification (e.g., expressly state “maintenance is non‑modifiable under Section 502(f) and the parties waive any right to seek modification” and have both sign).
- If you want to preserve a client’s right to seek court modification, avoid phrasing that could be read to incorporate or carve out section 502.
- When litigating modification dismissals, challenge or defend based on the precise MSA wording and the court’s statutory‑construction analysis; a 2‑619 dismissal can be reversible where the contract language supports statutory modification.
- Remember this is a Rule 23 order (limited precedential value); nevertheless, it signals careful scrutiny of MSA language regarding 502(f).