Blum v. Koster

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » Supreme Court » 2009 » Blum v. Koster

Blum v. Koster

State: Illinois

Docket No: 105795 Rel

Case Date: 10/08/2009

Preview:Docket No. 105795.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

STEVEN BLUM, Appellant, v. JUDY KOSTER, Appellee. Opinion filed October 8, 2009.

JUSTICE KILBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Garman, Karmeier, and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION In this appeal, we review whether (1) the trial court erred in modifying Judy Koster's periodic maintenance; (2) the trial court erred in providing that its maintenance award was nonmodifiable and nonreviewable; and (3) the trial court erred in dismissing, as untimely, Judy's petition for contribution of attorney fees. The trial court reduced Judy's periodic maintenance and limited maintenance to three years. The order entered by the trial court provided Judy's maintenance was "non-modifiable as to duration and amount and can not be changed if there is a change in circumstances nor is it subject to any review by this Court." The trial court also dismissed, as untimely, Judy's petition for contribution of attorney fees incurred in the postdecree proceedings.

The appellate court determined the trial court erred in reducing Judy's periodic maintenance. The appellate court further concluded that the time limitation period provided in section 503(j) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/503(j) (West 2004)) does not apply to postdecree petitions for contribution of attorney fees. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the trial court's orders and remanded the cause for further proceedings. 377 Ill. App. 3d 509. We allowed Steven Blum's petition for leave to appeal. 210 Ill. 2d R. 315. We now affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the appellate court and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND Steven and Judy divorced after 17 years of marriage. Judy was awarded sole custody of the parties' minor children. The final judgment of dissolution of marriage incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement. The marital settlement agreement provided that Steven would pay Judy unallocated maintenance and support, for her and the minor children, of $5,000 per month for 61 months. The agreement also stated that maintenance would be reviewable after April 30, 2005, and would not terminate without a court order. The marital settlement agreement further provided that the monthly payments and the percentage of Steven's bonus would continue for 61 months or until the first of several enumerated events, including "a showing of a substantial change in circumstances which shall not include the attainment of majority, or other emancipatory event of one or more of the minor children." Under a separate provision within the same section of the marital settlement agreement, Judy agreed to make "reasonable efforts to become economically self-sufficient." Subsequent to the initial dissolution judgment, the trial court entered an agreed order that Steven would pay for the children's higher-education expenses and Judy would pay for the children's travel to and from college and certain other incidental expenses. The agreed May 2003 order also allocated Steven's previously undisclosed income and specified the "other income" did not modify the maintenance and support provisions of the marital settlement agreement, but supplemented the payments with new, "additional maintenance payments." -2-

On January 3, 2005, Steven filed a petition requesting the trial court terminate Judy's maintenance after April 30, 2005. Steven argued that his obligation to pay maintenance to Judy should be terminated because the children had attained majority and he was paying their college expenses. Steven also alleged: (1) Judy's living expenses were lower because she had moved to a smaller home; (2) she was a licensed attorney who could support herself; and (3) she had an obligation of self-support under the marital settlement agreement. Judy argued the unallocated payments were not simply child support and the children's reaching majority was excluded as a ground to modify payments under the marital settlement agreement. Judy also denied she was able to support herself and asserted that Steven failed to show a substantial change in circumstances to justify modification or termination of maintenance. A seven-day intermittent trial commenced on August 9, 2005. The evidence presented at trial established that Judy was born in 1949, and graduated from the University of Illinois with a bachelor's degree in French and English literature. In 1972, Judy obtained a master's degree in teaching. She never taught, except for student teaching, and then worked as an editor for approximately two years. Judy then attended and graduated from law school, passing the Illinois bar exam in February 1978. She worked at a law firm for about one year. She then worked for a franchise company before opening her own law practice where she handled a variety of small cases for about a year and a half. In September 1982, Judy and Steven married. Steven had just completed his residency in anesthesiology and was residing in California. Judy closed her law practice and joined Steven in California in October 1982. The parties' sons were born in 1984 and 1986, and Steven's son from his first marriage lived with the parties for several years. Although Judy passed the California bar exam, she did not have an active legal career. Judy dedicated herself to her family, serving as the homemaker and raising the children. Steven's career prospered and the family maintained a high standard of living. In 1993, the family relocated to Illinois. Judy continued to raise the children and manage the home and the family still enjoyed a high standard of living. In 1998, Steven filed for a dissolution of the marriage. -3-

Following the dissolution, the parties' sons lived with Judy. Steven's visitation was structured around his work schedule. When the children began attending college, Judy continued to maintain the home and the boys continued to live with Judy approximately four and a half months per year. After the dissolution, Judy sought to develop an immigration law practice. She joined professional associations of immigration lawyers, attended classes and seminars, and bought books and materials related to immigration law. From 2000 to 2005, Judy maintained an office and worked approximately two days a week around the children's schedules. Judy never earned a profit from her law practice. In 2003, Judy was approached about some jewelry she had made and asked to participate in a show. She spent time and money making jewelry, hoping to supplement her income, but was unsuccessful. After closing evidence on October 25, 2005, the trial court entered a written order on November 2, 2005, reducing Judy's monthly maintenance to $3,500 beginning May 1, 2005, and limiting maintenance to three years. The trial court's order further provided: "This is in full and complete satisfaction of STEVEN BLUM's obligation to pay maintenance to JUDY KOSTER and other than the aforesaid payments, she shall be forever barred from seeking maintenance from the Petitioner. This Order is nonmodifiable as to duration and amount and can not be changed if there is a change in circumstances nor is it subject to any review by this Court." On December 2, 2005, Judy filed a motion to reconsider and a petition for contribution of attorney fees. Steven answered Judy's motion to reconsider and moved to dismiss her contribution petition as untimely. The trial court denied Judy's motion to reconsider and granted Steven's motion to dismiss Judy's petition for contribution of attorney fees. The appellate court found the trial court's reduction of Judy's maintenance was not supported by the evidence. The appellate court also determined that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority in making its award of maintenance nonmodifiable. Further, the appellate court determined that the time limitation in section 503(j) is inapplicable to postdecree proceedings. The appellate court therefore -4-

reversed the trial court's orders and remanded for further proceedings. 377 Ill. App. 3d 509. II. ANALYSIS Steven contends that the appellate court erred in finding that the trial court abused its discretion in modifying Judy's periodic maintenance. Steven also argues that the appellate court erred in ruling that the trial court lacks authority to award maintenance as nonmodifiable and nonreviewable. Finally, Steven asserts the appellate court erred in holding that the time limitation for filing petitions for contribution of attorney fees under section 503(j) is not applicable to postdecree proceedings. We first review the trial court's post-decree modification of Judy's periodic maintenance. A. Modification of Periodic Maintenance Steven argues that the trial court properly construed and applied the statutory provisions of the Act (750 ILCS 5/501 et seq. (West 2004)), and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying Judy's periodic maintenance. We review de novo the construction and application of the Act. See People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159, 172 (2003) (reviewing de novo the construction of a statute). In construing a statute, "[o]ur primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent." People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 323 (2007). "[T]he surest and most reliable indicator of [legislative intent] is the statutory language itself, given its plain and ordinary meaning." Perry, 224 Ill. 2d at 323. In determining the plain meaning of statutory terms, we consider the statute in its entirety, the subject it addresses, and the apparent intent of the legislature in enacting it. People v. Davis, 199 Ill. 2d 130, 135 (2002). When the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we must apply it as written, without resort to extrinsic aids of statutory construction. People v. Collins, 214 Ill. 2d 206, 214 (2005). If the statutory language is ambiguous, we construe the statute to avoid rendering any part meaningless or superfluous. People v. Jones, 214 Ill. 2d 187, 193 (2005). We do not depart from the plain language of the statute by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions

-5-

that conflict with the expressed intent. People v. Martinez, 184 Ill. 2d 547, 550 (1998). In general, modification and termination of maintenance and support obligations are governed by sections 502, 504(a), and 510(a

Download Blum v. Koster.pdf