In re Marriage of Watson, 2022 IL App (2d) 210137

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Watson, 2022 IL App (2d) 210137 (Apr. 18, 2022).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Richard Watson. Respondent-Appellant: Stephanie Cox (f/k/a Stephanie Watson).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly struck as time‑barred respondent’s post‑dissolution petition to extend and increase reviewable maintenance.
- Proper application of the post‑decree maintenance review framework in the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (including interplay with amendments adding reviewable/rehabilitative concepts and the court’s duty to identify issues at review (citing In re Marriage of Kuyk)).

3. Holding/outcome
- Reversed and remanded. The appellate court held the trial court erred in striking Stephanie’s petition as time‑barred and directed further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court focused on procedural and substantive maintenance law under the Act (citing 750 ILCS 5/504(a), 504(b‑1) and 510(a‑5)) and on the record showing the 2014 dissolution reserved maintenance and later awarded “reviewable” maintenance.
- The trial court had concluded the petition was untimely and criticized the record for lack of notice about what Judge Johnson intended to be reviewed; the trial court therefore struck the petition. The appellate court found that conclusion erroneous — the post‑decree statutory framework permits a party to seek review/extension of maintenance when maintenance was reserved/reviewable, and a dismissal for untimeliness was not supported by the statutory scheme or the record.
- The opinion emphasized the need to resolve the petition on its merits (including consideration of statutory factors such as parties’ incomes, health, duration of marriage, and employability) rather than disposing of it as time‑barred. The court also noted evidentiary gaps in the hearing below (absence of vocational or treating experts) but left those for the trial court to address on remand.

5. Practice implications
- Draft maintenance provisions with clarity on duration, reservation language, and the scope/timing of any review rights to avoid later disputes about timeliness.
- When pursuing or defending post‑decree maintenance review, develop a complete evidentiary record: medical/psychiatric records, treating‑provider testimony, vocational evaluations, and up‑to‑date financial affidavits.
- Trial courts should be cautious about dismissing maintenance petitions as untimely absent clear statutory or contractual time limits; parties should assert and preserve statutory arguments for reviewability.
- Cite Kuyk and statutory sections when arguing what issues a reviewing court may or must address and to frame notice and scope of a review hearing.