In re Marriage of Sadovsky, 2019 IL App (3d) 180204

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Sadovsky, 2019 IL App (3d) 180204.
- Petitioner-Appellant: Teri D. Sadovsky. Respondent-Appellee: Claude A. Sadovsky.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether termination/reduction of maintenance was proper where obligor (an ER physician) voluntarily retired (allegedly in good faith). (750 ILCS 5/510)
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence and expert testimony (including corporate tax returns, portions of a retained expert’s report disclosed under Supreme Court Rule 213, and a treating/consulting psychologist’s testimony framed as to “reasonable medical certainty”).
- Whether trial court properly applied statutory maintenance factors (financial resources, ability to be self-supporting, standard of living, health/age, etc.).
- Whether the trial court properly denied contribution for attorney fees and costs (750 ILCS 5/508, 503).

3. Holding/outcome
- Appellate court: affirmed in part, reversed in part. It affirmed the trial court’s finding that Claude’s retirement was in good faith but reversed on evidentiary rulings that deprived Teri of critical proof and remanded for a new trial on the petition to terminate maintenance. The denial of Teri’s petition for contribution of fees/costs was affirmed.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Good-faith retirement: Appellate court agreed that a party voluntarily reducing or ceasing employment can justify modification if retirement was in good faith (citing case law). Evidence supported Claude’s stress-related reasons and medical complaints prompting retirement.
- Evidentiary errors: The court found prejudicial abuse of discretion in three principal rulings: (1) striking and refusing to consider a properly disclosed expert report (Dr. Franaszek) and barring related testimony as a Rule 213 discovery sanction; (2) excluding Dr. Van Byssum’s testimony because her report did not phrase opinions in the precise “reasonable degree of medical certainty” language; and (3) refusing Teri’s testimony about the marital standard of living and excluding corporate tax returns/financial records relevant to Claude’s earning capacity and resources. Those exclusions impaired Teri’s ability to present statutory-factor evidence required by §510.
- Fees: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying fee shifting where both parties had sufficient assets.

5. Practice implications
- Even when a retirement appears bona fide, courts must evaluate all §510 statutory factors; practitioners should present comprehensive proof of earning capacity, assets (including corporate receipts/returns), lifestyle, and health.
- Comply with Rule 213 disclosure formalities; however, arbitrary exclusion of properly disclosed, relevant expert reports or barring testimony on form-over-substance language (e.g., “reasonable degree of medical certainty”) risks reversal. Preserve offers of proof when testimony is excluded.
- When defending maintenance reduction/termination, develop contemporaneous medical and employment records to substantiate good-faith retirement. When attacking it, ensure experts’ reports and testimony address causation and ability to return to work in admissible form.
- Fee petitions remain discretionary; asset parity can undercut requests for contribution.