In re Marriage of Wojcik

Illinois Appellate Court, First District, First Division · 2018 · Family Law

Family Lawmaintenancemarital settlement agreementsmodification of supportprejudgment interestunallocated family supportreviewable maintenancetermination events

Facts

The parties were married for about 30 years, and their marital settlement agreement required respondent to pay petitioner $13,500 per month in unallocated family support for 60 months, expressly stating that the obligation was "reviewable." The agreement listed specific termination events—death of either party, petitioner's remarriage, or petitioner's qualifying cohabitation—and allowed modification if a petition was filed before any of those events occurred. Petitioner filed a petition to set maintenance a few weeks after the 60-month payment period ended, after the parties' minor child had reached majority. At trial, the court found petitioner had made reasonable efforts to become self-supporting but still could not support herself at the marital standard of living, while respondent earned substantially more.

Issue

Did the trial court have authority to review and extend the maintenance component of a 60-month unallocated family support obligation after the original payment period expired where the agreement stated the support was reviewable and no contractual termination event had occurred? If so, did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding indefinite maintenance, and could it also award prejudgment interest on the retroactive maintenance amount?

Rule

When a marital settlement agreement expressly makes a time-limited unallocated family support obligation reviewable and permits modification until specified termination events occur, the court may review and extend the maintenance component after the original payment term expires, so long as no listed termination event has occurred. In determining maintenance, the trial court may award indefinite maintenance where the marriage was lengthy and the parties' earning capacities are grossly disparate, and such a decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Prejudgment interest under the Act applies only to a support obligation that has become due and remains unpaid; a retroactive maintenance award does not become due until the court enters the order setting and extending the obligation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Seattle, Nora Benton and Eli Mercer divorced after a 22-year marriage. Their marital settlement agreement required Eli to pay Nora $8,000 per month in unallocated family support for 48 months, “reviewable,” and stated that modification could be sought by petition filed before Nora’s remarriage, either party’s death, or Nora’s resident continuing conjugal cohabitation; Nora filed a petition for maintenance three weeks after month 48 ended, and none of those events had occurred.

Should the court dismiss Nora’s petition on the ground that the 48-month payment period had already expired?

Explanation. The majority held that where a marital settlement agreement expressly labels a time-limited unallocated family support obligation as “reviewable” and permits modification until specified termination events occur, the court may review and extend the maintenance portion after the original term expires so long as no listed termination event has occurred. The fixed term alone does not create automatic termination when the agreement lacks such language. (Derived from In re Marriage of Wojcik (n.d.).)