In re Marriage of Shulga, 2019 IL App (1st) 182028

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Shulga, 2019 IL App (1st) 182028 (1st Dist. Sept. 30, 2019). Petitioner/Appellee: Jodi Shulga (former wife). Respondent: Ronald Shulga (deceased). Third‑party Respondent/Appellant: Mary Klebba‑Shulga (second wife; survivor beneficiary).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court may impose a constructive trust on firefighter pension survivor/death benefits paid under 40 ILCS 5/4‑114 to prevent unjust enrichment when a marital settlement agreement (MSA) and QILDRO awarded the ex‑spouse 50% of the marital portion of the pension.
- Whether disability or survivor benefits that arose after dissolution but under the Firefighters’ Pension Code fall outside the MSA/QILDRO and thus beyond the court’s equitable power.
- Preservation/appropriate procedural vehicle for equitable relief (bench disposition on pleadings).

3. Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It held the trial court properly imposed a constructive trust on the survivor/death benefits paid to Mary and ordered payment of 50% to Jodi (50% of gross monthly survivor benefit ≈ $4,584.76). The judgment enforcing the MSA/QILDRO against the survivor benefits was upheld.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Procedural posture: the hearing was treated as a bench resolution on undisputed facts (functional equivalent of judgment on the pleadings); parties did not object to that procedure so appellate review proceeded on the merits.
- Equitable power and unjust enrichment: the court concluded it retained power to enforce the MSA/QILDRO and to impose a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment where the parties contracted to divide pension proceeds and the QILDRO reflected a 50% award to the ex‑wife. Although the MSA/QILDRO did not explicitly mention death benefits, the trial court found the parties’ agreement, the QILDRO’s terms (including prohibition on selecting a form of payment that would diminish the alternate payee’s share), and the equities supported extending relief to survivor/death benefits.
- Appellant’s arguments (that disability/death benefits are not “retirement benefits” and that the court lacked power) were rejected where the trial court found the necessary elements for a constructive trust and enforcement of the MSA; appellant failed to raise certain defenses below (e.g., waiver) at hearing.

5. Practice implications for family-law counsel
- Explicitly allocate post‑dissolution disability, survivor and death benefits in MSAs and QILDROs; specify whether QILDRO covers death/survivor benefits and designate beneficiaries.
- Draft QILDROs to control form of payment and include survivorship language where intended.
- If representing alternate payees, seek injunctions or trust arrangements and require pension‑fund notice provisions and security for enforcement.
- Preserve objections and affirmative defenses at the earliest stage (waiver, statutory exclusions, improper remedy) — appellate courts give weight to issues unraised below.
- Anticipate intersection with statutory pension schemes (e.g., 40 ILCS 5/4‑114) and address statutory limits in the MSA/QILDRO.