In re Marriage of Tronsrue, 2024 IL App (3d) 220125

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Tronsrue, 2024 IL App (3d) 220125. Petitioner-Appellee: Elsa Tronsrue (n/k/a Elsa Toledo). Respondent-Appellant: George Tronsrue. Third District panel affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of George’s 2019 petition to terminate payments set by a 1992 dissolution judgment.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a collateral challenge in 2019 could void or modify a 1992 marital settlement provision that required George to pay Elsa a percentage of his Army disability retirement and VA disability benefits.
- Whether the 1992 order was void for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (such that it could be attacked outside the normal post‑judgment timelines), or instead final and unassailable absent timely appeal or appropriate statutory grounds for modification (e.g., 750 ILCS 5/510).

3. Holding/outcome
Affirmed. The appellate court held the 1992 dissolution/judgment was not void for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, and George’s late collateral attack was barred. The trial court properly granted Elsa’s motion to dismiss.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Subject‑matter jurisdiction: Illinois circuit courts have constitutional jurisdiction over justiciable dissolution matters; the dissolution action filed in 1990 conferred subject‑matter jurisdiction, so the 1992 judgment was not void. A judgment is collaterally attackable as void only for a total want of jurisdiction (subject‑matter or personal) or, in limited circumstances, a facially unconstitutional statute — none of which applied.
- Finality/timeliness: The 1992 order was final and appealable; George did not appeal within 30 days and therefore lost the right to challenge the merits later except by demonstrating voidness or satisfying statutory grounds for reopening.
- Modification authority: The court retained enforcement/modification authority in later years only under section 510 (and related standards); George failed to show entitlement to relief under §510 or that the judgment was void. The court emphasized that an order is enforceable even if erroneous when timely appellate remedies were not pursued.

5. Practice implications
- Timeliness: Challenge dissolution/property allocations promptly (appeal or 2‑1401 where appropriate). Collateral attacks years later face a high bar — voidness for lack of jurisdiction is narrowly construed.
- Drafting settlements: Use explicit USFSPA/benefit allocation language and alternative enforcement mechanics (direct-pay clauses, QDRO‑style provisions where applicable) to avoid later disputes.
- Strategic pleadings: If contesting division of federal benefits, raise jurisdictional or federal‑law preemption issues in the original proceedings or on direct appeal; do not rely on late collateral attacks.
- Enforcement: Courts will enforce final dissolution provisions and may use contempt to compel compliance where necessary.