Court Opinion

ID: 9819320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:22:36.596555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:34.259538
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would reverse and remand the decision of the trial court with instructions to modify the maintenance order. The April 1996 agreed maintenance order of $225 per week did not take into account Judith’s social security disability award, an award for which she had not even applied when the agreed $225-per-week order was entered. The majority opinion adopts a new rule, that what is important in an agreement is what the parties contemplated, or could have contemplated, not what they said. It is not the function of the courts to carry out the intention of the parties regardless of whether the instrument contains language sufficient to express it. 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 352 (1991). The intention or understanding of the parties must be determined not from what the parties thought but from the language of the contract itself. Saddler v. National Bank, 403 Ill. 218, 228, 85 N.E.2d 733, 740 (1949); Monroe Dearborn Ltd. Partnership v. Board of Education, 271 Ill. App. 3d 457, 462, 648 N.E.2d 1055, 1058 (1995) (court should give effect to parties’ intent as evidenced by language used in contract). The majority opinion states that if the parties intended that maintenance be modified when social security benefits were received, they could have so agreed. It is also true that if the parties intended that the amount of maintenance not be modified when social security benefits were received, they could have included that language in their agreement. The majority’s analysis allows a court, in hindsight, to rule whichever way it wants, by selecting a party to criticize for the lack of additional language in the contract. If parties are to be bound not just by what they said, but by what they could have said, where will we draw the line? Will we say that surely the parties contemplated that the payor would be receiving pay increases since he had been receiving regular pay increases in the past? Will we say that surely the parties contemplated that the recipient’s expenses would be increasing since inflation has been a fact of life for many years? Under the majority’s analysis, a court may now choose not to modify maintenance in almost every case where the parties have entered into an agreement. Even if we accept the majority’s argument that specific language is necessary before future social security benefits can justify maintenance, such language was present in this case. The marital settlement agreement contains section 1, entitled “Maintenance.” Under that section there is subsection 1 — d, entitled “Social Security Disability Application,” which imposes on Judith a duty to apply for social security disability and to advise Richard of the disposition of such application. The majority’s suggestion that it would be speculation for us to assume why this language is present in the agreement is simply a refusal to consider the language of the contract, the most legitimate source for determining the parties’ intent. The majority does not point to any contract language to support its argument that an award of social security benefits cannot be a basis for modification. In the absence of language in the agreement stating whether future changes in income or expenses may be considered in modifying a maintenance order, those changes should be considered. It would be exceptional for the existing order to have taken those changes into account. A basic principle in setting support, either child support or maintenance, is that the amount of support should be based on current conditions. When changes then occur, child support or maintenance can be modified. In re Marriage of Carpel, 232 Ill. App. 3d 806, 819, 597 N.E.2d 847, 857 (1992) (should not consider mere possibility of future resources); In re Marriage of Moore, 117 Ill. App. 3d 206, 208, 453 N.E.2d 102, 104 (1983) (should not consider possibility or likelihood of future income increases). In fact, evidence of future social security benefits has been excluded in setting maintenance, as the trial court is generally required to consider the parties’ economic circumstances as they exist at the time of the maintenance determination. In re Marriage of Zeman, 198 Ill. App. 3d 722, 736, 556 N.E.2d 767, 775 (1990). The Act is geared toward a present ability to pay support and does not suggest in its terms that possible future financial resources of a party may also be taken into account. Coons v. Wilder, 93 Ill. App. 3d 127, 134, 416 N.E.2d 785, 792 (1981). “In ordering the payment of child support, a circuit court must consider the needs of the child, the separate income of the wife, and the income of the husband. [Citations.] Because changes in these facts cannot be anticipated with accuracy, a circuit court should ordinarily not try to anticipate such changes by making its award of child support to increase automatically with the child’s age.” McManus v. McManus, 38 Ill. App. 3d 645, 647, 348 N.E.2d 507, 509 (1976). If a payor’s net income of $500 per week would justify support of $100 per week, what sense does it make to order $120 per week, on the expectation that the payor will be earning $600 a year later? If the trial court does order $120 per week, there will be an overpayment of support until the increase in net income occurs. It would be possible to set child support or maintenance at a percentage of net income, but percentages are generally disfavored. See In re Marriage of Florence, 260 Ill. App. 3d 116, 120, 632 N.E.2d 681, 684 (1994); In re Marriage of Waldschmidt, 241 Ill. App. 3d 7, 12-13, 608 N.E.2d 1299, 1303 (1993); see also 1 H. Gitlin, Gitlin on Divorce § 15 — 17, at 679-81 (2d ed. 1997) (suggesting that while the parties can agree to automatic increases in the maintenance level, the court in the absence of agreement should not provide for automatic increases). The fact that the present agreement did not provide any type of adjustment in the event Judith began receiving social security indicates that the receipt of social security benefits was intended to be a basis for modification. In the present case, the maintenance of $225 per week was either too little before Judith began receiving social security or was too much after she began receiving it. Courts are sometimes frustrated when parties return to court shortly after signing a settlement agreement. See In re Marriage of Uphoff, 80 Ill. App. 3d 145, 147, 398 N.E.2d 1243, 1245 (1980) (where the ex-husband agreed to a child support order knowing full well that two days later his salary would end by virtue of a voluntary agreement he had entered into with his employer). In Uphoff, modification was denied because of the ex-husband’s bad faith. No such circumstances are present in this case. See In re Marriage of Lavelle, 206 Ill. App. 3d 607, 613, 565 N.E.2d 291, 295 (1990) (respondent agreed to order well before his business entered bankruptcy).