Court Opinion

ID: 9710226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:04:42.891089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:55.200491
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOFFMAN, dissenting: The present case comes before this court on appeal from the trial court’s order which reduced Mrs. Breuer’s monthly maintenance from $1,400 to $400. I have no quarrel with the law or the facts as stated by the majority, but I disagree with its conclusion. The majority has concluded that it cannot find the maintenance modification in issue was an abuse of the discretion vested in the trial court in such matters. To justify its finding, the majority has primarily focused upon the assets of the respective parties. It is true that the record reflects that Mrs. Breuer owns a condominium valued at $175,000, which is encumbered by an $11,000 mortgage, and investments valued at $80,482 while Mr. Breuer is, for all practical purposes, without assets. However, the assets of the parties are only one of the factors to consider under section 504(b) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 40, par. 504(b)), in determining whether maintenance should be reduced. In re Marriage of Lyons (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 300, 508 N.E.2d 458. As the majority points out, the parties to this action are both 73 years old and in ill health. The record reveals that Mr. Breuer is employed and intends to remain employed. Mrs. Breuer is unemployed and cannot work due to her health. The disparity in the annual incomes of the parties is substantial. Mr. Breuer’s gross annual income from his salary and social security benefits is about $96,233; Mrs. Breuer’s gross annual income from investments and social security benefits is about $11,796. If Mrs. Breuer’s maintenance payments are reduced to $400 per month, or $4,800 per year, Mr. Breuer would still have a gross income of $91,433 after paying maintenance while Mrs. Breuer’s gross income including maintenance would be $16,596 per year. There is no doubt that Mr. Breuer has suffered financial reversals. In 1975, he was earning $50,000 to $100,000 per month; by 1991, his house had been foreclosed and his income was reduced to about $96,000 per year. But that circumstance does not justify the extreme reduction in maintenance ordered by the trial court. By its order, the trial court reduced Mrs. Breuer’s annual income by 42%. There is nothing in this record that suggests that Mrs. Breuer can meet her reasonable needs on the reduced amount of maintenance without being forced to sell her home or other assets. (See In re Marriage of Werries (1993), 247 Ill. App. 3d 639, 616 N.E.2d 1379 (spouse seeking maintenance is not required to sell assets to provide for his or her support if other spouse has sufficient income to meet both of their needs); In re Marriage of Thornton (1980), 89 Ill. App. 3d 1078, 412 N.E.2d 1336.) Further, there is nothing in this record to suggest that Mr. Breuer required such a drastic reduction in his maintenance obligations to meet his reasonable needs. There is no question that Mr. Breuer’s financial reversals make it impossible for either party to enjoy the standard of living to which they were accustomed during their marriage. But I find no justification in this record for reducing the annual income of a 73-year-old woman who cannot work due to ill health from $28,596 to $16,596 while her former husband would still enjoy an annual income in excess of $90,000 after paying maintenance. Applying the factors to be considered under section 504(b) as set forth by the majority, I find such a reduction under the circumstances of this case to be an abuse of discretion. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.