IICLE Family Law Flash Points, May 2018

Trial court erred when it applied the law-of-the-case doctrine. In a post-judgment maintenance modification hearing, the trial court granted ex-husband’s request for a downward modification of maintenance due to a change in employment, but denied his request for a termination of maintenance based on the law-of-the-case doctrine. The trial court held that because a prior judge in 2011 had ordered ex-wife to receive “indefinite” maintenance at a maintenance review hearing, that it was bound by that ruling according to the law-of-the-case doctrine. The Appellate Court reversed.  Pursuant to the law-of-the-case doctrine, questions decided on a previous appeal are binding on both the trial court on remand and the appellate court on subsequent appeals. Because there was no appeal in this matter on the prior maintenance ruling, the application of this doctrine was in error. The Court also noted that irrespective of how a prior court rules on a maintenance review, a subsequent court is not precluded from modifying the award where a party establishes a substantial change of circumstances. In re Marriage of Carstens, 2018 IL App (2d) 170183.
View Source

Trial court reversed for not applying maintenance duration guidelines. In a post-judgment maintenance modification hearing, the trial court held that the maintenance duration guidelines set forth in Section 504(b-1) of the IMDMA were not applicable and the Appellate Court reversed. Consistent with the Second District’s ruling in In re the Marriage of Benink, 2018 IL App (2d) 170175, the Court held that because ex-husband filed his petition to terminate or reduce maintenance on February 24, 2016, and his amended petition on April 22, 2016, both petitions were filed after the effective date of the 2016 amendments to the IMDMA (which was January 1, 2016).  Because the petition sought modification of a March 31, 2011 order, the 2016 amendments clearly applied to the petition under Section 801(c) of the IMDMA and the amendments, and thus the maintenance duration guidelines, should have been applied to these proceedings.   In re Marriage of Carstens, 2018 IL App (2d) 170183.
View Source

Trial court affirmed on reduction of child support and arrearage under theory of equitable estoppel. In a procedurally complex post-judgment case which involved IDHS intervening at certain points to collect unpaid child support, a court order was drafted, but not entered, finding that a support arrearage of $8400 existed and setting out an ongoing support amount. Despite the fact the order was not entered, the support recipient filed a memorandum of lien against the payor’s home and received the arrearage payment when the payor applied for a home equity line of credit. Later, the payor and the recipient verbally agreed for the payor to make payments of $165 per week in lieu of the original judgment’s payment amount of $788 per month. The payor made such payments from 2006 through 2014, but not consistently.