The Trial Court granted husband’s motion to terminate maintenance.  It found that his decision to retire from his job as an ER physician was made in good faith. 

The Trial Court barred the use of a report of wife’s controlled expert, an ER physician.  It had been properly disclosed by wife, so it was no surprise. 

Wife’s counsel attempted to use an edited report in questioning that expert and discussing his opinions.  This was proper as the edited report contained the same substance and conclusions as the previously disclosed full report of the expert’s undisclosed opinions.

The Trial Court struck the testimony of this expert as to the husband’s employment options. Those opinions were relevant.  As to the wife’s contention that the husband had the ability to continue to pay maintenance.  And the nature of his opinions were stated in pretrial disclosures.

The Trial Court refused to allow the wife to testify as to her lifestyle during the marriage.  The court reduced his maintenance obligation to zero.   Wife appealed.

The Appellate Court did not agree with the Trial Court’s findings.  It stated that the Trial Court had abused its discretion.   

Any refusal to consider the parties’ standard of living before or after dissolution is in direct contravention of statutory guidelines. The case was sent back to the Trial Court.  The numerous evidentiary errors were substantially prejudicial to the wife.

In re Marriage of Sadovsky, 2019 IL App (3d) 180204 (December 3, 2019)