In re Marriage of Scarp, 2022 IL App (1st) 210711

In re Marriage of Scarp, 2022 IL App (1st) 210711

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Scarp, 2022 IL App (1st) 210711 (1st Dist., 2nd Div., July 12, 2022).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Stefanie A. Scarp. Respondent-Appellant: Jeffrey D. Rahman.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) — specifically a broad “except for the terms herein concerning the support, custody or visitation of the minor children, this Agreement shall not be changed, modified or altered … except by mutual consent” clause — rendered spousal maintenance nonmodifiable.
- Interaction of that clause with 750 ILCS 5/502(f) (statutory scheme governing modifiability of agreements) and whether the MSA language unambiguously expressed an intent to preclude modification of maintenance.

3. Holding/outcome
- Judgment affirmed. The appellate court held the MSA’s catchall non-modification clause (section 14.11) manifested a clear intent that maintenance was nonmodifiable; the trial court correctly denied Jeffrey’s petition to terminate or reduce maintenance.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard: de novo review of contract and statutory interpretation; ordinary contract principles apply to MSAs; unambiguous terms control.
- The court observed section 14.11 tracks pre‑2016 statutory language and found it sufficiently clear to preclude judicial modification of the MSA except by mutual consent.
- Prior Illinois precedent (e.g., In re Marriage of Schweitzer) supports enforcement of broad “agreement shall not be modifiable” provisions as rendering maintenance nonmodifiable when the parties’ intent is clearly manifested.
- The appellate court rejected arguments that (a) “support” in section 14.11 should be read to exclude spousal maintenance, and (b) subsidiary provisions (maintenance “predicated upon” 2015 incomes and an obligation to exchange tax returns) created ambiguity making maintenance modifiable. The court found these provisions did not override the explicit non‑modification clause.
- The opinion notes the current statutory language (post‑2016) permits parties to provide maintenance is non‑modifiable, but when parties use clear, comprehensive non‑modification language in their MSA, courts will enforce it.

5. Practice implications
- Drafting: To ensure non‑modifiable maintenance, include an explicit clause stating maintenance is non‑modifiable as to amount and/or duration (reference 750 ILCS 5/502(f) where appropriate) rather than relying on broad or ambiguous “catchall” language.
- Precision: If parties intend maintenance to remain modifiable, include an express reservation permitting modification; conversely, to bar modification be explicit about “maintenance” (amount/duration).
- Evidence/negotiation: Keep contemporaneous drafting records and clear integrated terms (signed, written amendments required) to avoid later disputes.
- Timing/statutory changes: Counsel should be mindful of statutory amendments and effective dates when advising clients and drafting settlements; courts will enforce clear, unambiguous MSA language under de novo review.