Court Opinion

ID: 9739153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:09:42.314153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.288411
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LUND, specially concurring: Justice Steigmann’s special concurrence suggests the change in section 504 of the Act eifective January 1, 1993 (see Pub. Act 87—881, eff. January 1, 1993 (1992 Ill. Laws 1019, 1023-24)), "deprives Mittra — and its progeny — of continuing validity.” (260 Ill. App. 3d at 835.) He has concluded that since 1977 the legislature has changed from disfavoring maintenance to favoring maintenance. I do not find justification for that conclusion. What has been intended, and is now intended, is that permanent maintenance be given in proper cases. However, that does not negate an obligation by the maintenance recipient to seek partial or full self-support in proper cases. I need not waste print by repeating what has continually been set forth by our court and others on this subject. (See Lenkner, 241 Ill. App. 3d 15, 608 N.E.2d 897.) Three members of our court, including Justice Cook, recognized the validity of Mittra in the Lenkner opinion, and I emphasize the same recognition by concurring with Justice Cook’s opinion in this case. Having carefully examined the changes to section 504 since inception through the latest changes, I find no justification for holding Mittra no longer has validity.