Court Opinion

ID: 9744412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:02:30.934704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:49.076768
License: Public Domain

Niemeyer, P. J., specially concurring. I concur in the reversal of the decree and the remandinent of the cause with directions. Two questions are presented on appeal: (a) Did the $34,540, to be paid “as a lump sum property settlement and alimony in gross” etc., become a vested property right of plaintiff on the entry of the decree? (b) Are plaintiff’s rights under the decree governed by section 18 of the Divorce Act as. amended pending the appeal? An affirmative answer to either question will require reversal of the decree. A decree for divorce, like a final decree in any other case, cannot be changed after expiration of the term (now after 30 days from the entry of the decree) except in so far as the statute granting the power to award alimony authorizes the court to modify it. Herrick v. Herrick, 319 Ill. 146; Kelley v. Kelley, 317 Ill. 104. Continuously since 1827, our statutes on divorce have authorized the court “on application from time to time to make such alterations in the allowance of alimony and maintenance ’ ’ as shall appear reasonable and proper. (Rev. Laws 1827, p. 182; Rev. Laws 1833, p. 234; Rev. Laws 1845, p. 197; Rev. Laws 1874, 1933 and 1949, ch. 40, § 18.) The courts have narrowed and defined the application of the statute. It does not and cannot affect alimony in which the beneficiary has a vested property right. Craig v. Craig, 163 Ill. 176, decided under a former statute; Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361; and Banck v. Banck, 322 Ill. App. 369, in which the amendment of 1933 “that a party shall not be entitled to alimony and maintenance after remarriage,” on which the rights of defendant herein are predicated, was under consideration. As held in Arnold & Murdock Co. v. Industrial Commission, 314 Ill. 251, “A right is vested when its enjoyment, present or prospective, has become the property of a particular person as. a present interest.” 11 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, § 370, says: “Eights are said to be vested in contradistinction to their being contingent or expectant. A right is ‘vested’ when there is an ascertained person with a present right to present or future enjoyment; it is ‘expectant’ when it depends on the continuation of existing circumstances, . . .; and finally, is ‘contingent’ when it depends on the performance of some condition or the happening of some event before some other event or condition happens or is performed. ’ ’ Alimony in gross is a definite, fixed sum for, in lieu of, or in satisfaction of all or a portion of alimony in the usual form of a periodic allowance. Dinet v. Eigenmann, 80 Ill. 274; Maginnis v. Maginnis, 323 Ill. 113. Even though the payment of the sum awarded as alimony in gross is postponed and is to be made in instalments, the right to the whole award vests in the beneficiary on the entry of the decree. In Dinet v. Eigenmann, supra, the wife procured a divorce, and in August 1872, an award of alimony, $10,000 payable on or before July 1, 1873, and in addition thereto $2,000 per year during her life. She died in December 1872. The $10,000 had not been paid and her administrator sought to collect it. The court affirmed the power of the trial court “to allow an amount in gross in satisfaction of all or a portion of alimony, ’ ’ and said: “. . . when the amount was ascertained and fixed, the right to the money became vested and as fully fixed as had. the money been paid or the husband had given his note for the amount. The husband could not resume it, nor did he become entitled to it on her death. It was absolutely the wife’s, and went to her representatives precisely as would any other money decree against any other person. It, then, follows that her executor or administrator had the right to proceed and collect it in the same manner that any other decree could be enforced after the death of the person in whose favor it was rendered. ’ ’ In McKey v. Willett, 248 Ill. App. 602, the defendant had been awarded, in the divorce proceeding brought by her, a gross sum settlement of $15,500, payable $500 on the entry of the decree, $7,000 within ten days thereafter, and the remaining $8,000 in four annual instalments of $2,000 each. The litigation involved the right to the three unpaid instalments. The court said: “ ... we think that the right or title to said sums, as well as the other sums making up said aggregate sum of $15,500, vested in Mrs. Willett immediately upon the entry of said decree of June 13, 1924. (Dinet v. Eigenmann, 80 Ill. 274, 279; Leutzinger v. McNeely, 216 Mo. App. 699, 704; Smith v. Rogers, [215 Ala. 581] supra.) ” To the same effect are Bassett v. Waters, 103 Kan. 853; Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810; Beard v. Beard, 57 Neb. 754; In re Fiorio, 128 F. 2d 562. Alimony in gross is not subject to modification. Plaster v. Plaster, 47 Ill. 290; Adler v. Adler, supra; Shaw v. Shaw, 59 Ill. App. 268; Griswold v. Griswold, 111 Ill. App. 269 Plotke v. Plotke, 177 Ill. App. 344; Martin v. Martin, 195 Ill. App. 32; Recklein v. Recklein, 327 Ill. App. 641. The statute applies where the provision for alimony takes the form of a periodic allowance. (Maginnis v. Maginnis, supra), but only as to payments maturing in the future. Adler v. Adler, supra. In that case, as will be hereafter shown, the award was in the form of a quarter-yearly allowance during the life of the defendant (respondent) and not a settlement in gross. In holding that future payments were voided by the marriage of defendant, the court said: “Her rights became fixed as to accrued payments, but as to all payments maturing in the future she had no vested right. The trial court did not undertake to give the statute a retroactive effect.... The amendment of 1933 to section 18 of the Divorce Act does not effect any vested rights of respondent.” The difference between alimony in the usual form of a periodic allowance and alimony in gross is clear. In the latter there is a single award or allowance of an ascertained, fixed sum, payable absolutely and not conditionally or contingently, in a single payment or in instalments, and therefore a vested right in the beneficiary from the entry of the decree. In a periodic allowance of alimony each allowance for a period is separate and distinct from all others, is a mere expectancy which cannot vest until the day of payment, and then only in the event the beneficiary is living. Craig v. Craig, supra. Such an allowance is not a basis of a settlement or award of alimony in gross. In Adler v. Adler, supra, the husband and wife entered into agreements December 30, 1920, creating a trust and providing for quarter-yearly payments to the wife of $1,350 during her life. November 29,1922, the husband procured a divorce on the ground of desertion. The question of alimony was reserved for future consideration. December 1, 1922, the parties entered into two supplemental agreements providing for additional quarter-yearly payments to the wife of $1,150 during her life. The latter agreements were incorporated into the decree entered December 2, 1922 and plaintiff directed to make the payments and keep and perform all covenants and agreements on his part to be performed in and by the terms of the agreements. The wife (hereafter called respondent as in the Supreme Court opinion) later married and the husband (petitioner) procured the cancellation of subsequent quarter-yearly payments of $1,150. Respondent appealed. The Supreme Court said (p. 363): “The question presented is whether the provision in the supplemental instruments of December 1, 1922, and the decree of December 2 for the quarterly payment of $1150, was an allowance of alimony and subject to modification under section 18 of the Divorce act, or Was it a final settlement in gross, of all the interest of the parties arising out of the marital relation, and, therefore, beyond the power of the court to modify or change.” The court held that when the supplemental agreements were executed respondent’s interest in petitioner’s property, both present and inchoate, had been terminated, except as to the right of alimony, which had been reserved; that provisions of the supplemental agreements evidenced an intent and understanding of the parties that they were contracting solely as to respondent’s alimony; that the quarterly payments therein authorized were in consideration of respondent’s relinquishment of alimony (reference to other rights which had been previously terminated being immaterial). In denying respondent’s claim that this was a settlement in gross and therefore not subject to modification, the court said: ‘‘ The answer is that the number of quarterly payments petitioner would be required to make was uncertain for it was dependent upon the date of death of respondent, and not upon their total reaching a predetermined sum.” The decree before us meets all the tests of a settlement and award of alimony in gross. The amount to be paid is fixed and certain. The obligation to pay is absolute and not conditional or contingent. The payment is “as a lump sum property settlement and ahmony in gross in full of her right, title and interest of every kind, nature, character and description in and to the property, income or estate which the husband now owns or may hereafter acquire.” Furthermore, the decree expressly “barred, terminated, ended and released” all right, title, claim and interest of each in and to the property of the other, except as to the rights granted to each by the terms of the supplemental agreement. Plaintiff’s right to the award and each instalment thereof vested on the entry of the decree. The court could not take that right away from her. Banck v. Banck, supra, and Hotzfield v. Hotzfield, 336 Ill. App. 238, are in conflict with the conclusion reached herein. The latter case is based on the former, and only the Banck case need be considered. The decree in that case, entered on defendant’s counterclaim, provided a property and ahmony settlement between the parties and awarded her, among other things, $4,500 as gross alimony, to be paid $500 upon the entry of the decree and the balance in monthly instalments of $100 each. This decree is substantially the same, in legal effect, as the decree before us and therefore governed by the same rules of law. Defendant married before all the monthly instalments became due and the trial court released plaintiff from the payment of instalments maturing after the marriage. On appeal by defendant the majority of the reviewing court affirmed the action of the trial court and held (p. 384) that the right of defendant to payments due and accruing prior to the date of the marriage became a vested right and could not be changed or modified by the court, but that future accruing payments which became due and payable subsequent to the date of her marriage were controlled by the specific provisions of section 18 of the Divorce act as amended. By this holding a lump sum property settlement and alimony in gross is converted into alimony in the form of a periodic allowance because it is payable in instalments. In only three of the cases cited in the majority opinion (Welty v. Welty, 195 Ill. 335, Bobowski v. Bobowski, 242 Ill. 524, De La Cour v. De La Cour, 363 Ill. 545) was the award unquestionably an allowance of alimony in gross. In two of them the award was payable in instalments. In none of them did any party aslc to have the alimony orders modified, or put in issue the authority of the court to change the order for alimony. The issues involved were the power of the court to award alimony in gross; to enforce alimony provisions after the expiration of the term in which the decree was entered; and the constitutional provisions of due process of law arising from the entry of the order finding the defendant had complied with the decree as to payment of alimony and enjoining plaintiff from interfering with his personal liberty, etc., on service by mail of a notice of application for the order. Neither case is authority for the right of a court to modify a decree for alimony in gross payable in instalments, for, as held in In re Estate of Tilliski, 390 Ill. 273, “. . . a judicial opinion, like a judgment, must be read as applicable only to the facts involved, and is authority only for what is actually decided.” In Thompson v. Mentzer, 216 Ill. App. 470, and Miller v. Miller, 317 Ill. App. 447, cited in the majority opinion, the character of the awards was in issue. The opinions in these cases were written by the same justice. The decision in the latter case was based solely on the first, the court saying, only, “We think it clear that this was not alimony awarded for a gross sum,” and citing the prior decision. In the Thompson case the alimony, awarded by consent of the parties, was “$5,000 cash, and $30 per month beginning on the 1st day of May, 1916, and the first of each month thereafter during the life of Joseph Arnold, father of complainant, and until the minor son should arrive at the age of 21 years.” In affirming the order discontinuing monthly payments after the marriage of complainant, the court, without citing authorities or stating reasons, said: “We think it clear that since the decree provided for monthly payments it cannot be said that the alimony was for a gross sum. ’ ’ On the entry of the decree the right to the monthly payments was merely an expectancy which could not vest until the day of the respective payments, and the number of payments or total amount to be paid was uncertain because dependent on the continued lives of Joseph Arnold and the minor son of the parties. In legal effect this award is identical with that in Adler v. Adler, supra, where pursuant to the agreement of the parties the wife was awarded quarter-yearly payments during her life. Denial of her claim that the settlement was in gross and therefore not subject to modification, was not based on the fact that the alimony was payable periodically, as in the Thompson case, but because, as held by the court (p. 371), “. . . the number of quarterly payments petitioner would be required to make was uncertain for it was dependent upon the date of death of respondent, and not upon their total reaching a predetermined sum.” All the remaining cases cited are divorce cases in which the awards were in the form of periodic allowances, or separate maintenance actions, in which an award of alimony or support in gross is not authorized. Raab v. Raab, 150 Ill. App. 554. The law of the Banck case and of this case is stated in the dissenting opinion in the Banck case. The holding therein that alimony in gross payable in instalments is not subject to modification in Illinois is also in accord with the general rule. 17 Am. Jur., Divorce and Separation, § 646. Pending this appeal section 18 of the Divorce Act was amended so that “regardless of remarriage by such party or death of either party such party shall be entitled to receive the unpaid instalments of any settlement in hen of alimony ordered to be paid or conveyed in the decree.” This amendment expressly exempted from the operation of the statute unpaid instalments of lump sum settlements in full of property rights and alimony in gross, such as the settlement before us. Respondent contends that the decision of this court is controlled by the law as amended. Divorce is a special statutory proceeding and the jurisdiction of courts of equity to hear and determine divorce cases and all matters relating thereto depends upon the grant of the statute and not upon the general equity powers of the court. Smith v. Smith, 334 Ill. 370. Alimony does not arise from any business transaction. It is not founded on contract but on the natural and legal duty of the husband to support the wife. Herrick v. Herrick, 319 Ill. 146. It is an allowance in a decree of divorce carved out of the estate of the husband for the support of the wife. Adler v. Adler, supra. The fact that an agreement between the parties for the support and maintenance of the wife is incorporated in the decree by consent of the parties, adds nothing to the force of the decree, for after the entry of the decree the rights of the parties rest upon it and not upon the contract. Herrick v. Herrick, supra; Adler v. Adler, supra. A decree for divorce is like a final decree in any other case, and after 30 days its provisions relating to alimony cannot be changed except in so far as section 18 authorizes the court to alter a decree to meet new conditions. Herrick v. Herrick, supra; Kelley v. Kelley, 317 Ill. 104. Defendant’s right to relief, therefore, rests entirely on the power given in section 18 to modify alimony decrees. This is in the nature of a special power. Smith v. Smith, supra. It is a special remedy. People v. Clark, 283 Ill. 221, 224; People v. Lindheimer, 371 Ill. 367. The latter case is directly in point and controlling. Basing their claim on section 268b of the Revenue Act of 1934, two taxpayers filed petitions for mandamus, one to compel a credit, the other a refund of excess taxes paid. During the pendency of the action section 268b was repealed. The writs were awarded. Respondents appealed and the cases were consolidated. Appellants claimed that appellees had no vested right under section 268b and that its repeal left them without a remedy, and that section 4 of the act relating to statutes was not applicable. Appellees contended that the repeal of the statute was not retroactive and therefore their rights under section 268b were saved by section 4 of the act relating to statutes. The Supreme Court reversed the judgments with directions that each petition be dismissed. It said (pages 271, 272): “The obligation of the citizen to pay taxes is purely a statutory creation.... So, also, any right to a refund or a credit of taxes is purely of statutory origin, and in the absence of an authoritative statute, taxes voluntarily, though erroneously, paid, cannot be recovered, nor even voluntarily refunded by a county, although there may be justice in the claim. (LeFevre v. County of Lee, 353 Ill. 30.) Therefore, section 268b of the Revenue act is the exclusive source upon which any claim of a right by appellees to a refund or a credit must necessarily be based. When the legislature enacted section 268b it presumably knew our holding in the LeFevre case, and prior decisions, that taxes voluntarily paid could not be recovered, and intended it as a remedial measure. Since such right or remedy applied only to one particular subject it must be held to be a special remedy. (People v. Clark, 283 Ill. 221.) ” And, (pages 373, 374): “That the legislature cannot pass a retrospective law impairing the obligation of a contract, nor deprive a citizen of a vested right, is a principle of general jurisprudence, but a right, to be within its protection, must be a vested right. It must be something more than a mere expectation based upon an anticipated continuance of the existing law. ... A retrospective statute affecting vested rights is very generally considered in this country as founded on unconstitutional principles and consequently inoperative and void; but this doctrine is not understood to apply to remedial statutes of a retrospective nature not impairing contracts or disturbing absolute vested rights. (People v. Clark, supra; Fairfield v. People, 94 Ill. 244.) The legislature has the undoubted right to repeal all legislative acts which are not in the nature of a private grant, (citing cases.) The unconditional repeal of a special remedial statute without a saving clause stops all pending actions where the repeal finds them. If final relief has not been granted before the repeal goes into effect it cannot be granted afterwards, even if a judgment has been entered and the cause is pending on appeal. The reviewing court must dispose of the case under the law in force when its decision is rendered, (citing cases.) ” In respect to section 4 the court said (p. 376): ‘ ‘ The holdings that such a repeal wipes out all remedies under the prior statute and leaves the parties where the repeal finds them (People v. Clark, supra, and other authorities above cited), necessarily makes the repealing act retrospective. The intent of the legislature that it should be so is manifest from the nature of the absolute repeal.......section 4 of the act relating to statutes is not applicable. ’ ’ Later cases to the same effect are Peoples Store of Roseland v. McKibbin, 379 Ill. 148; Hire v. Hrudicka, 379 Ill. 201; McQueen v. Connor, 385 Ill. 455; Weil-McLain Co. v. Collins, 395 Ill. 503; Fallon v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 402 Ill. 516. The fact that in the present case the statute was amended and not expressly repealed is immaterial. 50 Am. Jur., Statutes, § 552, says, * ‘ The amendment of an act, of course, operates as a repeal of provisions of the amended act which are changed by and repugnant to the amendatory act.” In Wall v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 290 Ill. 227, a judgment for $10,000 for the death of Edward Wall by wrongful act of defendant in Ohio was reversed because pending the action the Injuries Act, under which the suit was brought, was amended to declare that “no action shall be brought or prosecuted in this State to recover damages for a death occurring outside of this State. ” The court held that the Injuries Act conferred jurisdiction upon the courts in cases resulting in death by wrongful act which they did not have before it was given them by the legislature; that plaintiff had no vested right in the statute of 1853, and the legislature could have, had it seen fit, entirely repealed this statute and thereby swept away the entire remedy provided by it; that there is no vested right in a public law which is not in the nature of a private grant. The court said (p. 233): “The proviso of 1903 added to our Injuries act had the same effect as the repeal of a statute. In other words, the Injuries act before this proviso was broad enough to confer jurisdiction on our courts in any action for the recovery of damages for death by wrongful act, and by comity this jurisdiction was extended to those cases where death by wrongful act occurred outside of our State and a right of action existed under the laws of the State where the death occurred. Our courts then provided the remedy. This proviso took away that remedy in 1903 and it no longer exists in this State. (Crane v. Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Co., 233 Ill. 259.) The effect is the same as if the remedy never existed in this State except for the purpose of those suits which have reached a final judgment. ’ ’ In People v. Clark, supra, petitioners brought suit for a writ of mandamus to compel the narrowing of a highway, basing their right on a statute which the Supreme Court had interpreted as making it mandatory on the commissioners of highways to narrow the road on petition of a majority of the property owners. Pending the action the statute was amended by adding the words, “in their discretion,” so that the duty of the commissioners became discretionary instead of mandatory. The Supreme Court held that “at common law there was no statute or provision of the law under which an existing public highway might be narrowed”; that plaintiffs ’ rights depended wholly upon the legislative authority, and that the remedy given “must be held special under the statute, for it applied only to one particular subject, viz., the reducing of the width of an existing public highway”; that the rights of plaintiffs did not become fixed or vested by the filing of their petition for mandamus, and that the trial court correctly decided the case on the statute as amended. Section 18 is a remedial statute. The right granted to modify alimony decrees and the mandatory duty under the section as it existed when the decree was entered to cancel payments on the remarriage of the recipient, are special remedies under which petitioner could acquire no vested rights. The amendment providing that unpaid instalments “of any settlement in lieu of alimony, ’ ’ was intended to clear up any uncertainty there might be as to the application of section 18 to lump sum property settlements, or awards of alimony in gross payable in instalments, and must be construed liberally to effect the intent of the legislature. It was a special remedy. Neither plaintiff nor defendant could acquire any vested right under section 18 until final judgment was entered. This court must determine the rights of the parties under the law as it exists at the time of our decision, even though the decisión of the trial court was correct when entered. Wall v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., supra. For this additional reason the order must be reversed. Mr. Justice Feiuberg dissents: Admittedly, the reasoning and conclusion reached in the majority opinion are in direct conflict with Banck v. Banck, 322 Ill. App. 369, and Hotzfield v. Hotzfield, 336 Ill. App. 238, decided by this court (Second Division), and, as will be presently pointed out, are in conflict with the holdings in other cases. The contract of settlement embodied in the decree and made a part thereof does not reveal any specific property, real or personal, involved in the settlement, except, in general terms, each party was to retain the household furniture and furnishings in his or her possession. This decree is typical of many decrees in which reference is made to property settlements and alimony in gross, where, in reality, it is merely an amount agreed upon as alimony for support and maintenance, payable in instalments. There is nothing in this decree, by any recital, that would indicate there was any specific property involved in such settlement. To label a provision in the decree a property settlement and alimony in gross gives it no added force or effect, where the real purpose is to provide limited support and maintenance. In Welty v. Welty, 195 Ill. 335, the decree provided for the payment of $25 a month for a period of eight months, “said sum to be in lieu of and in full for alimony and in full of all other claims of any kind or nature. ’ ’ Certainly, the language ‘ ‘in lieu of and in full for alimony” is much stronger that the language in the instant case, “property settlement and alimony in gross,” yet the Supreme Court held in construing the decree that it was a decree for alimony, could be enforced by contempt proceedings, and modified under section 18 of the Divorce Act as the circumstances would permit. In Banck v. Banck, supra, where the decree also incorporated the written agreement of the parties and made it a part thereof, the agreement made specific provision for the transfer of real estate and the settlement of the rights of the parties in and to certain real estate, and also provided for the payment of $4,500 “as gross alimony,” payable in part upon the entry of the decree and the balance in monthly instalments of $100 each. It was there clearly held that the portion of the decree referring to the gross alimony, payable in instalments, was a decree for alimony and subject to the power of the court to modify under section 18, and, as pointed out in that opinion, the statute makes no distinction in the power to modify between a decree for a lump sum payable in instalments and a decree for periodic payments. That case analyzes the supporting holdings in De La Cour v. De La Cour, 363 Ill. 545, Maginnis v. Maginnis, 323 Ill. 113, and other cases. In Hotzfield v. Hotzfield, supra, the decree provided “the wife shall have in lieu of any alimony” a lump sum settlement of $1,080, payable at the rate of $15 per month, and for the conveyance of two lots in Indiana, and made provision for insurance to be maintained by the husband for the benefit of the wife and child. This court (Second Division), speaking through the learned Justice Soanlan, in a comprehensive review of the cases on the subject, held that the decree was one for alimony and could be modified. In Kohl v. Kohl, 330 Ill. App. 284, this court did not disagree with the holding or reasoning in Banck v. Banck, supra, but distinguished it. After the instant decree was entered, the amendment to section 18 of the Divorce Act went into effect, which provides that regardless of remarriage by such party, or death of either party, such party is entitled to receive the unpaid instalments of any settlement “in lieu of alimony ordered to be paid or conveyed in the decree.” The suggestion in the specially concurring opinion that this amendment should be given retroactive effect and made to apply to the instant decree is contrary to established holdings, in that it overlooks the clear distinction made in the authorities between a statutory provision which affects substantive rights and liabilities as distinguished from mere remedies or procedure. Theodosis v. Keeshin Motor Exp. Co. Inc., 341 Ill. App. 8. In the cited case will be found an exhaustive review of the Illinois cases and cases from other jurisdictions on the subject. In New York Life Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 388 Ill. 316, at p. 324, it was also held: “It has long been a canon of statutory construction that a legislative amendment is construed as prospective and not restrospective, in the absence of express language declaring it to be retrospective.” To give the amendment a retroactive construction would clearly violate the constitutional provision against impairment of the obligation of contracts. The instant decree with respect to the payment of the lump sum property settlement and alimony in gross is a consent decree, so admitted by the plaintiff in her brief, and without such admission must nevertheless be regarded as a consent decree. In Smith v. Smith, 334 Ill. 370, at p. 378, it was held: “The decree for support and maintenance was a consent decree, and as such must be regarded as a contract between the parties to the suit.” The majority and specially concurring opinions declare that the rights of the parties under this decree became vested, and were not subject to modification by the court. In Arnold & Murdock Co. v. Industrial Commission, 314 Ill. 251, at p. 255, it was held: “A statute can only be given a retroactive effect where it does not impair contracts or divest vested rights. ’ ’ Treating this consent decree, as we must, as a contract between the parties, the holding in Illinois Bankers Life Ass’n v. Collins, 341 Ill. 548, at p. 552, is squarely applicable. It was there said: “A basic rule of the construction of contracts and a material part of every contract is that all laws in existence when the contract is made necessarily enter into and form a part of it as fully as if they were expressly referred to or incorporated into its terms. This principle embraces alike those which affect its validity, construction, discharge and enforcement. . . . Contracts are presumed to have been entered into in the light of existing principles of law.” We followed the doctrine announced, in Cook-Master, Inc. v. Nicro Steel Products, Inc., 339 Ill. App. 519, 532. Under the holdings in the cases cited, section 18 of the Divorce Act, as it read at the time of the entry of the instant decree and not as afterward amended, is applicable, and no retroactive effect can be given to the amendment. The order appealed from should be affirmed.