In re Marriage of Sather, 2019 IL App (2d) 180835-U

In re Marriage of Sather, 2019 IL App (2d) 180835‑U (2d Dist. May 15, 2019) (Rule 23 — nonprecedential)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Sather, 2019 IL App (2d) 180835‑U.
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Gilman L. Sather. Respondent‑Appellee: Annette N. Sather.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court abused its discretion by denying a petition to modify/terminate maintenance where the payer retired.
- Whether payer’s retirement (and use of assets awarded in dissolution to fund maintenance) constituted a “substantial change in circumstances” under 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5).
- Proper treatment of agreed modification orders and the burden to show changed circumstances; interplay between maintenance and prior property division.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s petition to modify/terminate maintenance.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard: modification requires a showing of a substantial change in circumstances; courts consider the factors in 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5) and initial maintenance factors; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- Facts: original 2012 maintenance = $2,500/mo plus half brokerage; petitioner filed modification motions; in 2014 the parties entered an agreed order reducing maintenance to $1,100/mo (retroactive to July 2013). In 2017 petitioner sought termination claiming full retirement and lower income.
- Trial court found petitioner’s alleged change was not substantial because his gross monthly income in 2017 (~$2,484) was essentially the same as in 2013 (~$2,663) and the parties had contemplated retirement when they negotiated the 2014 agreed order. Petitioner had used assets awarded in the dissolution to make payments, but the court treated that as contemplated and not a reason to reopen the property division. The court applied the statutory factors and concluded no justifiable basis to terminate maintenance.
- Appellate court upheld deference to trial court’s credibility/weight findings and reasoning.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- When negotiating agreed modifications, expressly address future retirement, anticipated income scenarios, and whether distributions from awarded retirement/property will count as income for maintenance — ambiguous agreed orders can foreclose later relief.
- Preserve a full record (findings and ROP) when a modification is litigated; silence or a bare “agreed order” limits appellate review.
- Parties seeking modification must demonstrate a clear, substantial change in income/needs; voluntary retirement can be disallowed if income remains comparable or was contemplated in prior orders.
- Consider explicit waivers in property settlements about post‑divorce income from awarded assets if parties intend to insulate property division from maintenance claims.
- Remember appellate deference: credibility and factual determinations at trial are difficult to overturn.