In re Marriage of Wig, 2020 IL App (2d) 190929

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Wig, 2020 IL App (2d) 190929 (Dec. 29, 2020). Petitioner-Appellee: David Wig. Respondent-Appellant: Judith Wig, n/k/a Judith Progo.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a post-dissolution statutory amendment to the guideline-maintenance formula (750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)) displaced the maintenance-calculation formula embedded in the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA).
- If the amended statute applies, whether the trial court should apply the new “initial-setting” formula (A) or the later-added “modification” provision (A‑1) for pre‑2019 maintenance.
- Whether the MSA remained enforceable despite changes in federal tax law (elimination of alimony deductibility).

3. Holding/outcome
The Second District affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to enforce the MSA’s 30%–20% formula (which mirrored the pre‑2019 statute) and to use the A‑1/modification framework to honor the parties’ intent, resulting in $423/month maintenance (the amount produced by the agreement’s formula).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court treated the dispute as a contract/ statutory-construction question reviewed de novo. Under 750 ILCS 5/502(b), the MSA was enforceable and not shown to be unconscionable. The agreement expressly set a maintenance formula, contemplated tax-law changes, and provided a procedure (negotiate or submit to court) if tax consequences shifted.
- Because petitioner asked the court to set maintenance under the contractual formula rather than to seek a statutory modification, the unambiguous contractual term controlled. The court rejected the notion that the post‑dissolution statutory amendment automatically displaced the bargained-for formula.
- The trial court chose to apply the A‑1 provision (originally aimed at modifications of pre‑2019 orders that remained includible/deductible) as the interpretive vehicle to preserve the parties’ intent and tax expectations; the appellate court affirmed this as a permissible construction given the MSA language and circumstances (QDRO timing, entry of pension payments).

5. Practice implications
- Draft MSAs to explicitly address anticipated statutory or tax-law changes: identify which statutory formula controls, state whether maintenance is taxable/deductible, and set fall‑back calculation rules.
- Include clear dispute-resolution language (negotiation, binding arbitration, or court submission) for tax-impact changes.
- Be mindful of timing: QDRO entry and the date maintenance is set can affect which statutory regime is implicated.
- Courts will enforce plain contractual maintenance formulas; where tax law changes, litigants should seek prompt clarification/relief consistent with the agreement and parties’ intent.