In re Marriage of Tenhouse, 2023 IL App (4th) 230119-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Tenhouse, 2023 IL App (4th) 230119‑U.
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Deborah K. Tenhouse. Respondent‑Appellee: Douglas W. Tenhouse.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in terminating post‑judgment “lifetime maintenance” under 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5) after respondent’s early retirement.
- Whether the trial court’s factual findings (good faith retirement, recipient’s financial position, and potential “windfall”) were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3) Holding/outcome
- The Fourth District affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating maintenance and its factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Modification/termination of maintenance requires a “substantial change in circumstances” under section 510(a‑5) (750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5)). The statute directs the court to weigh factors including (1) employment/status changes and good faith, (2) recipient’s efforts to become self‑supporting, (3) present/future earning capacity, (4) tax consequences, (5) duration of payments vs. marriage length, and (6) property/retirement benefits awarded.
- The trial court found Douglas’s retirement was made in good faith (stress/health, long tenure, industry practice of early retirement) and not a scheme to avoid maintenance. Evidence supported that the retirement triggered pension distributions to Deborah (about $2,400/month taxable), Douglas received pension/one‑time vacation pay, and he had substantial marital assets allocated at dissolution. The court found Deborah was not left destitute: she had pension distributions, sizable assets she received in the divorce, and ability to work (teaching certificate, real‑estate license, retail experience). Continuing $3,000 maintenance on top of pension could create a windfall.
- The appellate court applied the abuse‑of‑discretion standard to the termination and manifest‑weight review to the factual findings, concluding the record supported the trial court’s conclusions.

5) Practice implications
- Early retirement will not automatically defeat maintenance termination claims; courts will scrutinize motive and good faith, available retirement distributions to the ex‑spouse, overall asset allocation, and whether termination would create destitution.
- Trial counsel should develop a robust record: employer/industry retirement norms, health/stress evidence, pension/QDRO calculations and tax effects, contemporaneous financial statements, business start‑up/withdrawal documents, and evidence of the recipient’s employability and efforts to be self‑supporting.
- Challenge termination by proving retirement was not in good faith or by demonstrating the recipient’s realistic inability to replace lost support; defend termination by documenting pension flows and showing continuation would yield an unjust windfall.