In re Marriage of Pruente, 2024 IL App (1st) 231161-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Pruente, 2024 IL App (1st) 231161-U (1st Dist. May 21, 2024) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: William Pruente (Chicago police officer). Respondent-Appellant: Dawn Pruente.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction after the 30‑day finality period to grant the relief Dawn sought (payment of the monthly pension amounts she would have received had William’s pension not been revoked).
- Whether Dawn’s petition was an enforcement of the dissolution judgment/MSA or a prohibited post‑final modification.
- Whether the trial court properly amended the QILDRO/Calculation Court Order to reflect the pension board’s revocation and the availability of a lump‑sum refund.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held Dawn’s petition sought a de facto modification (imposing a new obligation on William) and therefore the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant that relief after the 30‑day finality period. The trial court, however, had jurisdiction to enter an amended QILDRO/Calculation Court Order to effectuate distribution of the lump‑sum refund (it awarded Dawn 50% of the termination refund).

4. Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Finality: After 30 days from entry, property provisions in a dissolution judgment/MSA become fixed and non‑modifiable; only enforcement is permitted.
- Enforcement v. modification: Enforcement seeks to determine/implement rights and obligations as written; modification would impose new or different obligations. The court reviews that jurisdictional question de novo.
- Application: Dawn sought a monetary equivalent of the monthly benefit she would have received but for William’s conviction — i.e., a new obligation for William, not an interpretation/enforcement of the existing MSA/QILDRO. That was a prohibited modification.
- QILDRO/Calculation Court Order authority: The MSA and existing QILDRO expressly authorized the court to enter amended QILDRO/Calculation Court Orders to conform to changes in benefits; accordingly the court properly recalculated and ordered distribution of the lump sum (50% to Dawn).

5. Practice implications (for family-law practitioners)
- Draft MSAs/QILDROs to anticipate pension forfeiture events (criminal conviction, disability denial, refund vs. annuity): include express fallback mechanisms (lump‑sum allocation formula, indemnity clause, alternative assets, security/escrow, insurance, or maintenance offsets).
- Preserve enforcement routes: include durable language granting the court express continuing authority to enter amended QILDRO/Calculation Court Orders and to enforce specified monetary remedies.
- Timing: act within 30 days if seeking substantive alteration of property division; otherwise expect enforcement-only remedies.
- Consider alternative civil claims early (breach, fraud, restitution, equitable relief) but evaluate jurisdictional/finality barriers and possible preclusion.
- Remember Rule 23 status of the opinion — persuasive but not precedential.