Court Opinion

ID: 9745902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 13:41:45.838069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:06.167189
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, specially concurring: I concur and agree with this opinion in the determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the maintenance award. First and foremost, questions as to maintenance “ ‘are presented in a great number of factual situations and resist a simple analysis’ ” (344 Ill. App. 3d at 790, quoting May hall, 311 Ill. App. 3d at 769, 725 N.E.2d at 25); the trial court determines the propriety, amount, and duration of maintenance; and the reviewing court is not the trier of fact in reweighing the factors set forth in section 504(a). Our disposition makes it clear that the maintenance ordered by the trial court is subject to modifications pursuant to the Dissolution Act. The dissent points to the present college expenses paid for Meghan’s education and the ex-husband’s substantial income in working and retirement years and concludes that maintenance should be set now at $3,750 per month and the ex-wife should be required to pay one-half of the college expenses. 344 Ill. App. 3d at 795. To do this, we would simply be the trier of fact.