Marriage of Kalebic, 2025 IL App (2d) 230272-U — Attorney Summary

1) Case citation and parties
- Marriage of Kalebic, 2025 IL App (2d) 230272-U (Order filed June 20, 2025).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Charlene Kalebic (now Charlene Quint). Respondent-Appellee: Thomas Kalebic. Appeal from Lake County.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a collections-division judge erred or abdicated enforcement duties by declining to issue a turnover (garnishment) order to the Social Security Administration (SSA).
- Whether payments labeled as “cash payments” in the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) constitute maintenance/alimony (domestic support obligations) subject to garnishment of Social Security benefits.
- Whether appellant forfeited entitlement to judicial determination of how much of a prior contempt/judgment related to maintenance.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The collections judge did not abdicate enforcement duties. The “cash payments” were property-settlement obligations, not maintenance in the nature of alimony, and therefore were not subject to garnishment of respondent’s Social Security benefits. Appellant forfeited the argument that the collections court erred in refusing to calculate the dollar amount of unpaid maintenance.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The MSA separately identified (a) Article III “Maintenance” (non-modifiable monthly payments totaling $450,000) and (b) Article VIII “Property Settlement for Wife” including sizable “Cash Payments” (characterized in the MSA as a non-taxable division under §503(e)). The court relied on the contractual labels, the MSA’s tax/characterization language, and the structure of the agreement to conclude the cash payments were a property division, not obligations “in the nature of alimony.”
- Social Security benefits are not generally subject to execution for property-settlement judgments; garnishment for federal benefits requires a domestic support obligation. Because the contempt/judgment did not clearly and separately allocate a maintenance portion enforceable against SSA payments, the collections judge correctly denied turnover.
- Procedural shortcomings (absence of a transcript of the contempt hearing and failure to obtain a divorcer-court allocation earlier) led to forfeiture of appellant’s argument that the collections court should have calculated unpaid maintenance.

5) Practice implications
- Draft MSAs with clear, express allocations between maintenance/support and property division (include separate line-item amounts and cross-reference enforcement remedies).
- When seeking garnishment of federal benefits, obtain a clear, separate court finding that the obligation is a domestic support obligation and enter enforceable support orders.
- Preserve the record: obtain transcripts of hearings that result in contempt/judgment. Lack of a transcript can preclude appellate review.
- If a judgment mixes support and property obligations, move promptly in the dissolution court to allocate amounts before collection proceedings.