The trial court granted husband a reduction in the amount of maintenance
he was obligated to pay wife. It denied wife’s requests for an increase in
the monthly award based on the statutory maintenance guidelines. And it denied a retroactive increase for the time period the case was pending.
Wife appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed.
The wife had exchanged her interest in the marital residence for maintenance. The trial court had awarded her a $9000 lump maintenance payment and monthly maintenance of $1,000/month. It was reviewable in 24 months.
Prior to a hearing on wife’s motion to review maintenance, husband moved to terminate maintenance. He argued that he was unable to pay it because his job profitability continued to decline. Also, he had health issues that were becoming severe. He was contemplating taking early retirement in the next few years. He was incurring debt and depleting his savings. He further argued that wife was capable of working.
The trial court found that wife had skills But, she lacked job experience due to the fact she did not work outside the home in a career capacity during the marriage. It also noted her workers’ compensation claim and anticipated settlement.
Court did not err in granting husband a reduction in amount of maintenance to $675/month. It was automatically reviewable after husband turned 62 or upon a substantial change of circumstances.
Court refused to apply the reduced maintenance amount retroactively. Court properly denied wife’s requests for an increase in the monthly award based on the guidelines and for a retroactive increase for the time the case was pending.
The Court’s calculations had relied on husband’s payroll numbers and husband’s affidavit. The Court had extrapolated and estimated husband’s 2018 salary. This was a reasonable estimation of his salary.
In re Marriage of Burdess, 2020 IL App (3d) 190342 (July 8, 2020)
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!