In re Marriage of Wehr, 2021 IL App (2d) 200726

Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Wehr, 2021 IL App (2d) 200726 (2d Dist. Sept. 29, 2021).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Janet H. Wehr. Respondent-Appellant: Paul A. Wehr.

Key legal issues
- How to calculate the “marital portion” of an Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) pension under an MSA/QILDRO where the MSA defines marital portion using “the number of months married while a plan participant.”
- Whether a spouse is a “plan participant” during marriage months when he was not employed by an IMRF employer, earning service credit, or contributing to the plan.
- Procedural: whether appellate review was forfeited by failing to object before entry of the QILDRO calculation.

Holding / outcome
- The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions. It held the trial court erred by treating the husband as a “plan participant” for marriage months when he was not enrolled or earning credit under IMRF, because that interpretation allowed an award exceeding 50% of the benefit accrued during the marriage.

Significant legal reasoning
- Contract principles govern interpretation of MSAs; the primary objective is to effectuate parties’ intent from the agreement’s language. Interpretation is reviewed de novo.
- The MSA expressly awarded “50% of the marital portion” defined by a formula: actuarial equivalent of 50% of the Participant’s accrued benefit multiplied by (months married while a plan participant / total months of accredited service).
- The appellate court concluded that “plan participant” should be read consistent with the pension plan/IMRF practice—i.e., months during which the member was enrolled and earning service credit—because treating non-enrolled months as “participant” gave the alternate payee more than 50% of the amount actually accrued during the marriage, contrary to the MSA’s stated intent.
- The court rejected forfeiture argument because the trial court had granted leave to challenge the calculation based on mutual mistake and fully adjudicated the issue. The court also distinguished this as an interpretation dispute, not a collateral attack seeking modification of the MSA under 2-1401 standards.

Practice implications
- MSAs/QILDROs should expressly define key pension terms (e.g., “plan participant,” “marital portion,” “accrued benefit”) and specify whether only credited service months count.
- Before entry, obtain and attach a pension-administrator certification/calculation (IMRF) showing credited service periods and total service; ensure QILDRO uses those figures.
- When relying on a statutory/form QILDRO, confirm the form language aligns with the parties’ agreement and the plan’s definitions; if ambiguous, explicitly reconcile terms.
- Preserve objections and, if necessary, seek leave to correct administrative calculations immediately to avoid disproportionate awards and appellate reversal.