The parties were divorced in 1993. At that time, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, approved by the trial judge and incorporated in the judgment of dissolution. The Husband is now and forever barred from any claim of maintenance from the Wife. Petitioner responded with a motion to dismiss arguing the express language of the maintenance provision precluded termination of maintenance because of cohabitation or, alternatively, the maintenance pro- vision was actually nonmodifiable maintenance in gross.
Petitioner concedes the first issue.
Therefore, the only question before us is whether this provision constitutes nonmodifiable maintenance in gross. We conclude it does not. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. In this case, the agreement does not refer to mainte- nance in gross. Petitioner argues, however, that because the award is for a fixed rather than indefinite duration, it necessarily constitutes main- tenance in gross.