In re Marriage of Tronsrue, 2024 IL App (3d) 220294-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Tronsrue, 2024 IL App (3d) 220294‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 7, 2024) (Rule 23 order — not precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)). Petitioner‑Appellee: Elsa Tronsrue (n/k/a Elsa Toledo). Respondent‑Appellant: George Tronsrue.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the circuit court properly found respondent in indirect civil contempt for failing to comply with a 1992 dissolution judgment that required monthly payments tied to his Army disability retirement and VA disability benefits.
2) Whether the court abused its discretion by awarding contempt‑related attorney fees after respondent argued the 1992 order was void for lack of jurisdiction to divide federal disability benefits.

- Holding / outcome
The Third District affirmed. The court held the 1992 dissolution order was not void, upheld the contempt adjudication for intentional noncompliance, and affirmed the award of contempt‑related attorney fees (fees ultimately fixed at $24,939).

- Significant legal reasoning
- Procedural background: the 1992 judgment incorporated a marital settlement agreement requiring Elsa to receive 18.6% of George’s Army and VA disability payments; George did not timely appeal that judgment. In 2019 he sought to terminate the payments, claiming lack of jurisdiction to divide federal benefits; Elsa moved to dismiss and separately sought contempt relief for unpaid/underpaid amounts.
- The court relied on its companion decision rejecting the claim that the 1992 order was void. Because the judgment stood, George had a continuing legal obligation to make the agreed payments. His intentional failure to comply supported an indirect civil contempt finding.
- Standard of review: contempt and related fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion; the court concluded no abuse occurred in finding contempt or awarding fees. (The dissent would have treated the underlying division as void and thus found a compelling justification for noncompliance.)

- Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- Final dissolution judgments that incorporate settlement terms can support contempt and fee awards even decades later if not timely appealed; collateral attacks on final orders face high hurdles.
- Parties asserting a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction must raise and litigate that defense promptly; a late collateral challenge is unlikely to excuse noncompliance.
- When enforcing long‑standing payment provisions, seek contempt remedies and contemporaneous documentation (and be prepared to litigate purge conditions); courts can and will award attorneys’ fees connected to contempt proceedings (see 750 ILCS 5/508(b) implications discussed in dissent).
- Counsel should preserve appeal rights and maintain records proving compliance or noncompliance (including benefit notices) because such evidence affects purge calculations and fee exposure.