In re Marriage of William, 2021 IL App (5th) 190440-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of William Parker, 2021 IL App (5th) 190440‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. June 22, 2021) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: William E. Parker (Eddy). Respondent‑Appellee: Shelly G. Reichert.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a payor’s voluntary early retirement (age 62) justified termination of ongoing maintenance, or only modification.
- Proper standard and scope for a post‑dissolution “review” of maintenance where the decree provided for review after five years.
- Proper imputation of income for maintenance calculation, specifically whether income can be imputed beyond the payor’s normal retirement age (age 65) and how the imputed amount should be stated.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing (rather than terminating) Eddy’s maintenance obligation after his early retirement.
- However, the court vacated the reduced maintenance amount and remanded for a new order: (1) to clarify the amount of imputed income used in the maintenance calculation; and (2) to address whether it is appropriate to impute income to Eddy beyond his normal retirement age of 65.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court accepted that voluntary retirement does not automatically terminate maintenance; the trial court reasonably exercised discretion in weighing factors (age, health, retirement benefits, division of marital retirement assets, recipient’s resources and needs, and parties’ earning capacities) and concluded reduction — not termination — was warranted.
- The appellate court identified deficiencies in the trial court’s calculation: the order lacked clarity on how much income was imputed and did not resolve the legal question whether imputing income past the payor’s normal retirement age was proper. Because the decree and evidence reflected considerations of retirement benefits and asset division, the appellate court required a clarified factual and legal basis for the maintenance figure.
- The opinion signals that review provisions in decrees permit reexamination but do not eliminate the need for reasoned findings on good faith retirement and appropriate imputation.

5. Practice implications
- When litigating post‑dissolution maintenance disputes after retirement: (a) present evidence on the good faith of retirement, timing of pension/social security, health, employability, and division of retirement assets; (b) anticipate courts will more likely modify than terminate absent clear justification.
- Trial orders must plainly state any imputed income amounts, the rationale for imputation, and the temporal scope (e.g., whether imputation stops at normal retirement age).
- Draft dissolution judgments with precise review/termination language and consideration of retirement timing to reduce later ambiguity.
- Preserve complete transcripts and detailed financial exhibits to support or challenge maintenance calculations on appeal.