In re Marriage of Rodgers, 2022 IL App (2d) 210728‑U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Rodgers, No. 2‑21‑0728 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Order filed Nov. 29, 2022) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Shannon Rodgers. Respondent‑Appellee: Daniel Rodgers.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a substantial change in circumstances occurred to permit modification of maintenance where the payor’s total compensation rose materially after the dissolution agreement that calculated maintenance on a lower income figure.
- What evidentiary and statutory analysis is required when considering a maintenance modification petition (interaction of 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5) and 5/504(a) factors).

3. Holding / outcome
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s petition to modify maintenance and remanded for further proceedings. The court held the trial court erred in finding respondent’s increase in total compensation was not a substantial change in circumstances and directed the trial court to make findings applying the statutory factors in section 504(a) (and 510(a‑5)).

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The MSA had set maintenance ($4,434/month) based on Daniel’s gross annual income of $200,674 and imputed Shannon income of $35,000. Post‑dissolution evidence showed Daniel’s total compensation increased to roughly $467,000 in 2020 (base salary, bonuses, and payments from related entities), though tax returns showed lower reported figures and Daniel invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege at hearing.
- The trial court concluded the payor’s higher earnings alone were insufficient to establish a substantial change, citing Brunke and Plotz, and denied modification without undertaking the full statutory factor analysis.
- The appellate court rejected that approach: a showing that either the recipient’s needs or the payor’s ability to pay has changed is the proper predicate for modification. Because the trial court declined to find a substantial change without fully applying the factors listed in 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (and 5/510(a‑5)), the court remanded so the trial court can make the required findings based on the statutory framework.

5. Practice implications for attorneys
- When seeking (or defending) maintenance modification, be prepared to: (a) present clear, contemporaneous evidence of total compensation (bonuses, related‑entity payments) and reconcile tax returns; (b) address attempts to invoke the Fifth—seek alternative discovery, subpoenas, or adverse inferences where appropriate; and (c) insist the trial court expressly apply and articulate the 504(a) and 510(a‑5) factors rather than disposing of the petition on the basis that increased earnings alone are per se inadequate.
- Draft settlement provisions (MSAs) with explicit modification triggers, reporting obligations, and mechanisms (e.g., document production, caps, or true‑up clauses) to reduce post‑judgment disputes.