In re Marriage of Smiley, 2022 IL App (2d) 200696-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Smiley, 2022 IL App (2d) 200696‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Feb. 3, 2022) (Rule 23(b) order).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Keaton Smiley. Respondent‑Appellee: Sandra Smiley.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in applying factor (1) of 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (the parties’ income, property and financial obligations) when awarding maintenance.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in setting maintenance (amount, duration, and upward deviation from guideline maintenance).
- (Procedural/background): application of gross vs. base/net income for guideline maintenance calculations; sufficiency of specific factual findings under section 504(a).

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not commit reversible legal error nor abuse its discretion in awarding maintenance (upward deviation from guideline), and its factual findings on the statutory factors were adequate. Prior remand directions (to use gross incomes and make specific findings) were followed on remand.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The Second District emphasized the statutory framework: guideline maintenance is calculated from gross incomes and is subject to deviation only with explicit findings tied to the enumerated 504(a) factors.
- On remand the trial court used the parties’ gross 2017 incomes ($83,079.40 for Keaton; $53,565.31 for Sandra). The 40% statutory cap produced a guideline maintenance entitlement of only $94.09/month for Sandra, but the court properly exercised discretion to upwardly deviate to $6,000/year ($500/month) for 7.28 years.
- The court tied the deviation to detailed findings on multiple section 504(a) factors: Sandra lacked substantial marital assets; she shouldered support of children during an eight‑year separation; she had diminished earning capacity because she had been a stay‑at‑home parent and later worked third shift (limiting advancement); disparity in incomes and needs (Sandra’s post‑expense deficit ~20x Keaton’s); length of marriage and contributions to Keaton’s career. These specific findings satisfied the remand instruction and statutory requirement.
- The appellate court noted Sandra did not file an appellee brief but nonetheless reviewed the record and affirmed.

5. Practice implications
- Trial courts must calculate guideline maintenance using gross incomes; if deviating, they should make explicit, factor‑by‑factor factual findings under 750 ILCS 5/504(a).
- Evidence of homemaking, caregiving during separation, lost career opportunities, and post‑separation financial burden (including shift work taken for childcare) can support upward deviation.
- Orders that include truing‑up clauses (quarterly adjustments based on actual earnings) and clear termination/extension procedures (motion windows) are appropriate.
- Maintain clear record on income components (base, bonuses, shift premiums) and any alleged dissipation (e.g., 401(k) withdrawals) — the appellate court will scrutinize calculations and factual findings on remand.