Marriage of Kalebic

Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 6/20/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary: <h3>Case Summary: 2025 IL App (2d) 230272</h3> <strong>Date Filed:</strong> June 20, 2025<br> <strong>Court:</strong> Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District<br> <strong>Case Involved:</strong> ...

Full Case Summary

Case Summary: 2025 IL App (2d) 230272

Date Filed: June 20, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
Case Involved: In re Marriage of Charlene Kalebic n/k/a Carlene Quint
Case Number: No. 12-D-2257
Judges: Honorable Ari P. Fisz, Michael B. Betar, Justice Mullen

Parties:

Petitioner: Charlene Kalebic (now Quint)
Respondent: Thomas Kalebic

Background

The parties married on November 29, 1992, and filed for dissolution on November 28, 2012. A marital settlement agreement (MSA) leading to a judgment of dissolution was established on April 21, 2014.

Key Findings and Rulings:

  1. The court upheld the trial court's judgment enforcement related to collection cases.
  2. Payments termed "cash payments" in the MSA were not classified as "alimony," making them unenforceable against the respondent's social security benefits.
  3. The petitioner forfeited arguments regarding the trial court's failure to calculate unpaid maintenance.
  4. The court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's citation to discover assets linked to the Social Security Administration (SSA).
  5. The motion to reconsider related to maintenance calculations in prior judgments was denied.

Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) Overview

The MSA stipulated obligations regarding maintenance and property division. Key articles include: - **Maintenance**: The respondent agreed to pay $4,412 monthly in non-modifiable maintenance, together totaling $450,000 over 102 payments. - **Cash Payments**: Specific cash payment obligations were delineated, including a lump sum payment upon the MSA's effective date, conditional payments based on property sales, and monthly installments. - **Property Settlement**: The MSA allocated various assets between the parties and stipulated the obligations' continuation beyond the petitioner’s death for the estate.

Claims and Legal Proceedings

The petitioner alleged the respondent owed substantial past-due payments reflecting unpaid maintenance. A contempt motion was filed due to the respondent's default on payments, leading to a ruling in favor of the petitioner for owed amounts, including interest. Subsequent actions included motions to modify orders and a contempt order related to ongoing judicial proceedings about the same issues.

Pleadings and Appeals

The respondent challenged court orders regarding maintenance allocation and contested the jurisdiction of family versus collections court. The petitioner maintained that alleged payments were predominantly maintenance, initiating garnishment proceedings against the respondent's social security benefits.

Judicial Findings and Conclusions

The court emphasized the importance of intent and substance in classifications of payments, asserting that the "cash payments" were indicative of a property settlement rather than maintenance. The petitioner’s inconsistencies in presenting claims about these payments were noted. Ultimately, the court affirmed jurisdiction and upheld previous rulings against the petitioner’s appeals, emphasizing procedural forfeitures in claims unsupported by relevant citations.

Final Observations

The decision reflects complex interactions regarding maintenance obligations, property division disputes, and the determination of statutory duties towards social security payments. The appellate rulings and the underlying principles appear significant in exemplifying the nuances within family law, particularly in the interpretation of divorce settlements and the intent of marital agreements.

Download PDF Opinion Ask AI About This Case

Ask AI About This Case

Have a specific question about Marriage of Kalebic? Ask our AI assistant below.