In re Marriage of Ziegelman, 2025 IL App (1st) 230026-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Ziegelman, No. 1-23-0026, 2025 IL App (1st) 230026‑U (1st Dist. June 16, 2025).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: John Ziegelman. Respondent‑Appellee: Debra Ziegelman.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider John’s petition to modify or terminate maintenance where the JDOM/MSA contained language limiting post‑judgment modification.
- Whether John proved a "substantial change in circumstances" (IMDMA §510(a‑5)) warranting modification/termination: (a) his change from W‑2 employee to self‑employment/changed compensation structure; (b) emancipation of the youngest child; (c) financial gifts/support Debra received from her family and Debra’s unemployment.
- Whether the trial court’s contempt finding against John was legally sufficient (i.e., whether the court made required findings of willfulness and specified civil vs. criminal contempt).

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court held it had jurisdiction to consider John’s modification petition and that the MSA permitted modification under its terms. On the merits, John failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances; the trial court’s denial of his petition was affirmed. The contempt order was deficient—because it did not find willfulness or identify whether the contempt was civil or criminal—and was vacated/remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction/modifiability: Although the JDOM contained language purporting to make the MSA non‑modifiable, the MSA itself and paragraph 6.6 permitted either party to seek modification/termination based on statutory factors; therefore the court could entertain John's petition.
- Substantial change analysis: The court gave effect to the parties’ MSA terms (cap on income, explicit provision that income variance alone is not a basis for modification). The youngest child’s emancipation did not qualify because the MSA expressly contemplated transition from unallocated support to permanent maintenance. The change to self‑employment did not qualify because John operated Sopris as sole manager/sole employee, treated Sopris income and distributions as his own, and had owned businesses during the marriage—the court treated Sopris and John as essentially the same income source. Gifts from Debra’s parents, while relevant, did not constitute a sufficient change in circumstance to justify modification.
- Contempt: The appellate court reiterated that contempt orders must state whether the contempt is civil or criminal and include a finding of willfulness for criminal contempt (or identify the coercive purge condition for civil contempt).

5. Practice implications
- Draft MSAs with clear definitions of "gross income," rules for self‑employment/business expense deductions, caps/floors, and explicit modification procedures to avoid later disputes.
- When seeking modification based on self‑employment, develop record showing a qualitative change (loss of control, structural change, not merely form of compensation) beyond expected income fluctuation.
- For contempt motions/orders, ensure trial courts make explicit findings on willfulness and characterize contempt as civil (with coercive purge) or criminal (punitive) to survive appellate review.