In re Marriage of Schmecht, 2019 IL App (2d) 180435-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Schmecht, No. 2-18-0453, 2019 IL App (2d) 180453-U (order filed Apr. 15, 2019; Rule 23 non‑precedential). Petitioner/Appellee: Barbara Schmecht. Respondent/Appellant: Kurt Schmecht.

- Key legal issues
- Whether a party may seek modification/termination of maintenance where the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA), incorporated into the dissolution judgment, expressly states maintenance is “permanent,” “non‑reviewable and non‑modifiable.”
- Proper interplay of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA) sections governing maintenance (esp. 750 ILCS 5/502(f), 504, 510) with an express contractual waiver of modifiability.
- Whether the trial court properly dismissed the modification petition under section 2‑619 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

- Holding/outcome
The Second District affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of respondent’s petition to modify maintenance. Where the MSA unambiguously provided for non‑modifiable/non‑reviewable permanent maintenance ($25,000/yr), the petitioner had no statutory right to seek modification.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: de novo for both contract interpretation and a 2‑619 dismissal. MSAs are construed like contracts; unambiguous language controls (no extrinsic evidence).
- Statutory framework: IMDMA permits parties to enter agreements addressing maintenance and expressly allows parties to agree that maintenance be non‑modifiable (750 ILCS 5/502(f)). Sections 504 and 510 set factors for courts when awarding or modifying maintenance but do not override an express contractual waiver.
- The court distinguished decisions where “permanent” maintenance remained modifiable because those agreements lacked an express non‑modifiability clause (e.g., Arvin, Gallagher). The court relied on precedent (including Kozloff and the Blum discussion) recognizing that parties may expressly preclude modification; Blum does not forbid non‑modifiable awards when agreed to by the parties.
- No allegation or finding of unconscionability was made; thus the MSA’s plain language was binding.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Draft MSAs with clear, express language if parties intend non‑modifiable maintenance; conversely, expressly reserve modifiability if desired.
- Anticipate that an express contractual waiver of modification will bar later statutory modification absent a judicial finding of unconscionability. Preserve any unconscionability evidence at the time of entry.
- When negotiating, document the consideration/exchange for a non‑modifiable provision (to reduce later unconscionability or fairness attacks).
- Use care when advising litigants facing job loss or changed circumstances—contractual waivers can foreclose relief even for severe changes.
- Note: this is a Rule 23, non‑precedential order with limited citation value.