In re Marriage of Ruettiger, 2019 IL App (3d) 180176-U

In re Marriage of Ruettiger, 2019 IL App (3d) 180176-U (Ill. App. Ct. May 13, 2019) (Rule 23 — nonprecedential).

Parties
- Petitioner-Appellee: Susan Ruettiger (former wife)
- Respondent-Appellant: Mark E. Ruettiger (former husband)

Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion (a) by extending/continuing maintenance after an initial 3‑year award and (b) by applying the post‑2016 maintenance guideline formula (750 ILCS 5/504(b‑1)) in setting the amount on review/modification proceedings.
- Whether the husband demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances warranting reduction/suspension of maintenance.
- Whether the child‑support income determination was erroneous.

Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion: it properly denied the husband’s motion to reduce/suspend maintenance, granted the wife’s motion to extend maintenance for three more years, and applied the section 504(b‑1) guideline formula to set the amount. The child‑support ruling was also affirmed.

Significant legal reasoning
- Distinction between (1) a motion to modify maintenance (requiring a substantial change in circumstances under §510(a‑5)) and (2) a court’s review/continuation of an existing maintenance award. The trial court effectively granted the wife’s review/extension motion and denied the husband’s modification request. The court reasonably found the husband’s sporadic union employment did not constitute the required substantial change.
- The court considered the statutory factors in §§504(a) and 510(a‑5): parties’ incomes/employability, medical insurance changes, tax consequences, and living arrangements.
- Although authority was mixed on application of the 2016 guideline formula to post‑dissolution modifications, the legislature subsequently added §504(b‑8), authorizing courts on review to extend or alter maintenance “in accordance with” §504(b‑1)(1)(A). The trial court’s use of the two‑year average income and the guideline formula was therefore not an abuse of discretion.

Practice implications (concise)
- For plaintiffs seeking continuation/extension of temporary maintenance, ensure the record documents statutory §504/§510 factors (income, employability, insurance, tax effects).
- For defendants seeking reduction, be prepared to prove a substantial and sustained change in circumstances (not merely cyclical/typical industry unemployment).
- Track statutory amendment timing (e.g., §504(b‑8)) and preserve arguments about which statutory version applies; obtain specific findings if the court applies a new formula to a post‑dissolution award.
- When incomes are averaged over years, litigate (and document) what years and calculations the court should use; challenge factual income findings on the trial record (abuse of discretion standard applies).