In re Marriage of Reynard

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2008 » In re Marriage of Reynard

State: Illinois

Court: Illinois Southern District Court

Docket No: 4060897

Case Date: 01/16/2008

Preview:NO. 4-06-0897 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT In re: the Marriage of MARY ANNE REYNARD, n/k/a MARY ANNE SCHIERMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, and CHARLES G. REYNARD, Respondent-Appellee.

Filed 1/16/08

) Appeal from ) Circuit Court of ) McLean County ) No. 01D113 ) ) Honorable ) James R. Glenn, ) Judge Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE COOK delivered the opinion of the court: This action involves a petition to modify maintenance payments from Charles Reynard to Mary Anne Reynard, now Mary Anne Schierman. The trial court denied the motion. Mary Anne ap-

pealed, requesting that this court increase her maintenance from $1,600 to $2,800 per month. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND A. The Original Maintenance Award Though a more complete account of the facts surrounding the original award may be found in In re Marriage of Reynard, 344 Ill. App. 3d 785, 786, 801 N.E.2d 591, 592 (2003) (Fourth District), we sum up the original circumstances as follows. Mary Anne and Charles married in 1969 and divorced in 2002, after 33 years of marriage. They had two children: Rachel, Mary Anne and Charles

born in 1977, and Meghan, born in 1982.

each began their respective careers as teachers, and soon Charles

began going to law school at night.

In 1979, the couple moved

from Chicago to Bloomington/Normal where Charles ran unsuccessfully for McLean County State's Attorney. Charles subsequently Mary

ran successfully for that position in 1988, 1992, and 1996.

Anne supported him through the elections and worked as a campaign manager. Through most of the marriage, Mary Anne worked partShe also enjoyed a successful stint selling

time in the schools.

country decorating supplies, grossing $20,000 in one year. The divorce proceedings began in 2002. By the time of

the divorce proceedings, Mary Anne had developed a medical condition known as fibromyalgia and had medical expenses in excess of $500 per month. Charles had just been elected a

circuit judge, with an expected salary in excess of $136,000. Mary Anne was working full-time as a volunteer coordinator at a museum, making just over $29,000 per year. receiving $300 per month from a boarder. Mary Anne was also The couple's youngest

daughter was a sophomore at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. Charles had paid for most of the college expenses and was willing to continue to do so. The trial court divided the marital property, giving slightly more to Mary Anne. was $346,495. The total value of Mary Anne's share

This included the marital residence, valued at Mary Anne also had $37,000 in

$166,000 with no mortgage. nonmarital property.

The total value of Charles' share was - 2 -

$319,487.

This included two residential properties, one in The home in

Normal, Illinois, and one in Brentwood, Missouri.

Normal was valued at $108,000, and had just under $22,000 in equity. The residence in Brentwood was of similar value with a Charles also had $106,771 in

similar amount in equity. nonmarital property.

Lastly, the trial court determined that

each party was entitled to 50% of the other's retirement benefits to be paid through a QILDRO (qualified Illinois domestic relations order). The trial court set maintenance at $1,600 per month. The trial court ordered Charles to continue paying for Meghan's college expenses. At that time, Charles was making payments in The trial court stated

the amount of $2,900 to $3,400 per month.

it knew that Charles would have some difficulty meeting his financial obligations for a finite period of time, but that Charles was in a better position than Mary Anne to take out loans to meet those obligations. The original maintenance award was set to terminate upon the first to occur of the following contingencies: (1) the

death of either party; (2) Mary Anne's remarriage; (3) Mary Anne's cohabitation with another person on a resident, continuing, conjugal basis; or (4) completion of the January 1, 2013, payment. This court affirmed the original award, reasoning

in part that Charles was paying two mortgages and a car payment, - 3 -

as well as between $2,900 and $3,400 per month for Meghan's education, and therefore any higher amount would be unrealistic. Reynard, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 786, 801 N.E.2d at 592. B. Changes Since the Original Award On July 28, 2005, Mary Anne filed a petition to modify the order pursuant to section 510(a-5) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Dissolution Act), stating that there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the original order was filed. 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5) (West 2004).

Specifically, Mary Anne asserted that (1) Charles' income had increased; (2) Charles no longer had to pay for Meghan's college expenses; (3) Charles was no longer making one of the two mortgage payments; (4) Charles had remarried a working woman, presumably reducing his personal living expenses; and (5) Mary Anne no longer was receiving rent from a lodger, reducing her nonemployment income by $300 per month. Since the original award, Charles' salary has increased to approximately $157,000. exceeded $163,000. $422,000. His total income from all sources

Charles' investment assets increased to They went

Charles has since remarried Judith Valente.

to Greece on their honeymoon and hosted several wedding receptions, spending several thousand dollars. Charles had a

joint account with Judith and placed about $800 per month in that account, but the exact value of the account is not in the record. - 4 -

Charles owns a modest home, which at the time of the original award was worth $108,000 and had an 80% mortgage. Charles continued to make mortgage payments on the home. Charles

testified that major improvements needed to be done on the home in order to approach the standard of living he had experienced prior to his divorce from Mary Anne. Charles put off making

those improvements because he was hard-pressed to make his daughter's hefty tuition payments. Once the tuition payments

tapered off, Charles put a great deal of money into his home, spending approximately $2,833 per month for capital improvements and $250 per month for home improvements. Including his mortgage

and property taxes, Charles was spending approximately $4,257 per month on his house. Charles sold the second property in However, according

Missouri, which netted approximately $20,000.

to Charles, it was a mistake for this court ever to have allotted the mortgage payment from that property to Charles; he was not ordered to make said payments and never included said payments on his original financial affidavit. Excluding the mortgage on Charles' current home, Charles has taken on about $68,000 of debt since the original award. Some of this debt is due to loans that Charles took on to The rest is debt from home Charles pays $1,360 per

pay for his daughter's education.

repairs and a new Mitsubishi Gallant. month on this debt.

Charles' new financial affidavit indicates - 5 -

that his monthly expenses, excluding the $1,600 maintenance payments, total $8,098.02. Since the original award, Mary Anne's salary has increased to approximately $34,000, and her income from all sources has increased to $39,306. However, Mary Anne no longer Mary Anne, who is now

has a boarder bringing in $300 per month.

59 years old, did not go back to school or take on additional employment. Mary Anne sold the marital residence for $212,000 and, after closing costs, netted $206,700, which is $40,700 more than the marital property had been valued at in 2002. bought a smaller home for $142,500. Mary Anne then

Upon the advice of her

financial advisor, Mary Anne took out a mortgage on her new home and invested the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence. Mary Anne is required to make a mortgage payment of $280 per month but is actually paying off her mortgage at a rate of $500 per month. Mary Anne's investment portfolio has increased in value from $194,162 to $375,606. However, this at least in part is due

to the reallocation of assets after the sale of the marital residence. Mary Anne has taken three nice vacations since the a trip to Thailand to visit her daughter who was

original award:

living abroad, a trip to Finland for a close friend's wedding, and a trip to Boston for another wedding. - 6 Mary Anne has slightly

increased her monthly expenditures for entertainment, social clubs and the like, vacations, and gifts, for a total increase of $250 per month. Mary Anne hopes to retire in approximately six years, by age 65. Mary Anne has been directly depositing $1,116 per Mary

month from her paycheck into a 403(b) retirement account. Anne also contributes $416 per month to a Roth IRA. stated that her total monthly expenses were $4,132. C. The Trial Court's Ruling

Mary Anne

At the close of evidence, the trial court stated that it had prepared an oral ruling. The trial court denied Mary

Anne's motion to increase maintenance payments, finding that there had not been a substantial change in circumstances. The

trial court found that Mary Anne's total income had increased from $31,141 at the time of the original maintenance order to $39,306, an increase of 26.22%. Charles' total income had The trial court

increased from $143,965 to $163,733, or 13.73%.

found that Mary Anne's monthly expenses had increased from $3,060 to $3,496, or 14.25%. The court did not include the extra $220

per month in excess of the required payment that Mary Anne made toward her mortgage, nor did the court include the $416 monthly contribution to the Roth IRA. The trial court found that

Charles' monthly expenses, excluding the $1,600 maintenance payment, had increased from $7,027 to $8,473, or 20.58%. - 7 In

terms of assets, the trial court found the value of Mary Anne's real estate to have decreased by $58,000, or 34.9%. The court

found the value of Charles' real estate to have remained steady. The value of Mary Anne's savings, retirement accounts, and investments increased from $194,162 to $375,606, or 93.45%. The

value of Charles' savings, retirement accounts, and investments had increased from $350,392 to $422,772, or 20.66%. However,

the trial court noted that it did not include the value of Charles' joint account with Judith Valente, because it did not have a figure for that account. The trial court noted that Charles had accumulated $68,000 in debt since the original maintenance order. The trial

court expressly rejected Mary Anne's argument that Charles' financial situation has improved now that he is no longer paying for Meghan's college. The trial court stated it had anticipated

that Charles would have to borrow money to pay for Meghan's college in setting the original maintenance payment. The trial The

court stated that Charles was still paying off those loans.

trial court found the amount that Charles had estimated for the capital home improvements ($2,833 per month) to be reasonable. This appeal followed. II. ANALYSIS Mary Anne argues that the trial court erred in denying her petition to modify, and requests that this court increase her - 8 -

maintenance award to $2,800 per month.

As we stated previously:

"'Maintenance issues are presented in a great number of factual situations and resist a simple analysis.' [Citation.] The trial

court has discretion to determine the propriety, amount, and duration of a maintenance award. *** Section 504(a) of the [Act] sets forth factors the court must consider when determining the amount and duration of maintenance awards. These

factors include the income and present and future earning capacity of the parties; the needs of each party; any impairment of earning capacity due to devoting time to domestic duties or having forgone or delayed opportunities due to the marriage; the time necessary to acquire appropriate education, training, and employment; the ability of the party to support himself or herself; the standard of living established during the marriage; *** the age and physical and emotional condition of the parties; contributions and services by the party seeking maintenance to the education, - 9 -

training, or career of the other spouse; and any other factor the court expressly finds to be just and equitable. [Citation.] ***

[T]he trial court must strike a balance that is reasonable under the circumstances in light of the goals of section 504." Reynard,

344 Ill. App. 3d at 790, 801 N.E.2d at 595, citing 750 ILCS 5/504(a)(West 2000). In earlier times, where the only decree possible was one of judicial separation, where the wife was not allowed to own property in her own name, or where property was awarded to the person in whose name it was titled, usually the husband's, maintenance following a lengthy marriage was generally considered necessary. In re Marriage of Mayhall, 311 Ill. App. 3d 765, 767,

725 N.E.2d 22, 24 (2000) (Fourth District), citing 2 H. Clark, Domestic Relations

Download 4060897.pdf