In re Marriage of Bostrom

Appeal arising out of circuit court order denying a request to terminate maintenance, but reducing petitioner’s maintenance obligations to $0 per month based on a change in respondent's circumstances. Respondent appealed arguing that an increase in her income was not a substantial change in circumstances, that the circuit court erred when it modified the maintenance payments, and that it abused its discretion when it modified the payments to zero dollars. The appellate court affirmed the trial court, finding that there was a substantial change in circumstances where respondent’s financial needs had decreased while her income had increased and that a 53 percent increase in her salary was not contemplated when the initial maintenance payment obligation was imposed. The appellate court noted, however, that petitioner’s receipt of funds from her former husband’s IMRF account should not have been used to determine whether there was a substantial change in circumstances because the payment was specified in the marital settlement agreement. The appellate court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it modified the support payments because the record established that the petitioner was still able to maintain the standard of living that she had during the marriage and payments were no longer necessary to accomplish that goal. The dissent argued that the majority did not sufficiently consider the current assets of the former husband when looking at the amount of maintenance that was appropriate and would have remanded for re-calculation of maintenance. (DELORT, concurring and CONNORS, concurring in part and dissenting in part)