In a recent appeal, in IRMO Doermer [Ill.App.Ct. 1st District, 1-10-1567], LaQuietta Hardy Trial Judge. Rule 23, just such an issue came up.
The Wife had filed a petition to extend maintenance, and the Husband filed a motion to dismiss her claim, because the non-modification clause in the parties’ settlement agreement was enforceable.
The Wife contended that child support and maintenance were always modifiable, irregardless of whether a non-modification clause exists. She contended using the case of IRMO Semonchik [315 Ill.App.3rd 395, 733 N.E.2d 811(2000)], that she had a procedural right to seek a modification and that the non-modification clause itself was unenforceable.
Here is what the Appellate Court said: No. You entered into a contract for maintenance for 84 consecutive months, which provided a definite end date. Despite the two of you mutually agreeing to modify the terms of your settlement by agreeing for Husband to pay you a reduced sum for a greater period of time, until one of your children became emancipated, you nonetheless had a covenant.
The Appellate Court went on to state that the substance of Wife’s Petition to Modify focused on medical and financial reasons which kept Wife from supporting herself and was essentially not a petition to modify, but to extend maintenance. It made no difference whether she filed her petition before or after the 84 month cutoff.
The terms of the marital settlement agreement governed. You contractually agreed. While her personal circumstances may have been unfortunate, they do not override a clear non-modification clause with a termination date.
Moral: Specificity prevailed. You get what you contract for.
If you have questions regarding this topic or other family law issues contact James H. Andrle, III at 815-338-3838
