In re Marriage of Rodgers, 2024 IL App (3d) 230216-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Rodgers, 2024 IL App (3d) 230216‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Mar. 11, 2024) (Rule 23 order — not precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)). Petitioner‑Appellee: Shannon Rodgers. Respondent‑Appellant: Daniel Rodgers.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court misread an earlier Second District remand as compulsion to modify maintenance rather than simply to reconsider statutory factors.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in modifying maintenance (standard of review and required consideration of the statutory factors under 750 ILCS 5/504(a) and 5/510(a‑5)).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The Third District held the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in modifying maintenance to $10,000/month (retroactive effect retained).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The appellate court reiterated that a trial court, once it finds a substantial change in circumstances, may—but is not required to—modify maintenance; it must, however, consider the statutory factors in 750 ILCS 5/504(a) and 5/510(a‑5). Abuse‑of‑discretion review applies.
- On remand from the Second District (which had found respondent’s income increase constituted a substantial change and instructed the trial court to analyze statutory factors), the trial court expressly analyzed the statutory factors: respondent’s income rose from ~$200,674 to $467,000; petitioner was underemployed for 14 months (not in good faith); petitioner’s monthly expenses (~$9,373) were reasonable; petitioner had been out of the workforce for an extended period contributing to respondent’s career, impairing earning capacity (though improved after a degree). The trial court calculated guideline comparisons (noting combined income exceeded the $500,000 guideline cap), exercised discretion, and set maintenance at $10,000/month.
- The Third District found that—even if the trial court’s language suggested it believed modification was required—the record showed the court considered and exercised its discretion. That exercise was not arbitrary or unreasonable given the factual findings and the prior appellate guidance suggesting an increase was supported.

5. Practice implications
- On remand, litigants should obtain explicit, on‑the‑record findings on each statutory factor; appellate remands may require factor analysis but do not automatically mandate a particular outcome.
- Develop a clear record on income changes, imputed income, underemployment (good‑faith analysis), lifestyle and debt, and earnings capacity (including interruptions for homemaking).
- When combined income exceeds guideline caps, prepare competing guideline comparisons and separate discretionary arguments for or against deviation. Challenge retroactivity and amount through motions to reconsider and by attacking specific factual findings; however, appellate courts afford broad deference to trial courts’ discretionary adjustments.
- Note that Rule 23 orders are non‑precedential but persuasive in similar factual contexts.