In re Marriage of Portegys, 2023 IL App (3d) 230049-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Portegys, 2023 IL App (3d) 230049-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Nov. 1, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Mary Beth Portegys. Respondent‑Appellant: Thomas E. Portegys.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying respondent’s petition to terminate maintenance by (a) misapplying the statutory factors in 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5) and (b) refusing to appoint a “fact‑finding agent” to investigate the former spouse’s alleged Medicaid/assisted‑living funding.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thomas’s petition to terminate maintenance.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard: modification/termination of maintenance requires movant to prove a “substantial change in circumstances” (750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5)); trial court’s decision reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Procedural/background highlights: original dissolution (2001) incorporated MSA providing permanent maintenance ($2,100); a 2018 agreed order reduced payments to $984; Thomas filed for termination in 2018 (denied) and again in 2022 after partial retirement/return to work. At the 2023 hearing Thomas testified he now earned gross monthly income of $5,860.50 and speculated (without reliable evidence) that his ex‑spouse was receiving Medicaid/assisted‑living funds. Wife remained medically unable to work.
- The trial court analyzed the nine factors in 510(a‑5) and found three factors weighed against Thomas (his change in employment status and return to work, his increased income, and wife’s continued inability to be self‑supporting); remaining factors were neutral or unsupported by evidence. The court concluded the totality did not establish a substantial change.
- On the requested fact‑finder, the court correctly placed the investigative burden on the movant. The appellant offered only speculation and hearsay about Medicaid; he failed to produce admissible proof that public benefits materially increased the spouse’s income or would render maintenance a de facto reimbursement to Medicaid. The appellate court found no error.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Movants seeking modification/termination must develop admissible, concrete proof of a substantial change and address each 510(a‑5) factor; mere speculation or third‑party rumor about public benefits is insufficient.
- Courts are not required to appoint investigators to discover facts for a litigant; discovery and fact‑gathering are the movant’s responsibility.
- Be precise about public benefits (Medicaid v. Medicare) and their effect on “income” and maintenance — obtain documentary proof (eligibility determinations, facility billing, Medicaid notices) before seeking termination.