Michelle A. Lawless,Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC, Chicago
312-741-1092 | Email Michelle Lawless
Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Marital Settlement Agreement Requiring Division of Veteran’s Disability Pay and More
Illinois Supreme Court Holds Provision in Marital Settlement Agreement Requiring Husband To Pay Wife 50 Percent of Marital Portion of Husband’s Federal Veterans’ Disability Payments Was Not Preempted by Federal Law
In In re Marriage of Tronsrue, 2025 IL 130596, the parties were divorced in 1992, and in 2019, the husband filed a petition to terminate payments to the wife from the husband’s veterans’ disability benefits, arguing that such a provision in the marital settlement agreement (MSA) was void under federal law. The wife filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The anti-assignment provisions of the federal Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, Pub.L. No. 108-183, 117 Stat. 2651, did not preempt state court enforcement of the MSA in which the husband voluntarily agreed to pay the wife a portion of the husband’s benefits. The court distinguished the case at bar from Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 104 L.Ed.2d 675, 109 S.Ct. 2023, 2028 (1989), and Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214, 197 L.Ed.2d 781, 137 S.Ct. 1400, 1406 (2017), neither of which involved a party entering into a MSA and agreeing to use those benefits to pay an ex-spouse from veterans’ benefits. The court reaffirmed that subject-matter and personal jurisdiction existed at the time of the judgment, thereby making the judgment not void. The court also held that res judicata barred the husband’s collateral attack nearly 30 years later.
Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Indirect Finding of Civil Contempt and §508(b) Attorneys’ Fee Award
After affirming the trial court and appellate court and ruling that the husband’s argument that the federal Veterans Benefits Act preempted a MSA entered into almost 30 years ago was without merit, the court also upheld the trial court’s finding of indirect civil contempt and its award of $24,939 in attorneys’ fees under §508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/508(b). 2025 IL 130596 at ¶16. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding indirect civil contempt or awarding fees given that the husband’s failure to comply was without compelling justification. 2025 IL 130596 at ¶59.
Illinois Supreme Court Declines To Recognize Cause of Action for Tortious Interference with Parent-Child Relationship
In Hulsh v. Hulsh, 2025 IL 130931, after the mother successfully regained custody of her two children under the Hague Convention, she filed a state court action in Cook County against her former mother-in-law and brother-in-law, alleging tortious interference with the mother’s custodial rights and seeking to recover expenses the mother incurred in the federal district court to regain custody of the children. The mother’s complaint detailed both the mother-in-law’s and brother-in-law’s alleged involvement in aiding and abetting the kidnapping of the children from the mother’s custody. The trial court dismissed those claims, and the appellate court affirmed since Illinois does not recognize tortious interference with a parent’s custodial rights, regardless of the damages claimed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, restating that the Illinois legislature is the proper venue for Illinois to create such a cause of action. In its decision, the court reviewed the basic tenets of tort law, including that for a cause of action in tort to exist there must be a duty, breach of that duty, and damages, as well as the litany of caselaw both in Illinois and other states that have dealt with this issue. In declining to create a new tort in Illinois for tortious interference with the parent-child relationship in which the plaintiff seeks damages to recover expenses incurred in regaining custody, the court also noted that this precise relief is provided for in the Hague Convention. In this case, the mother was ultimately granted $265,096 in attorneys’ fees in federal court, although the mother requested nearly $500,000. 2025 IL 130931 at ¶6. The father declared bankruptcy in order to avoid paying the fees, but the bankruptcy court declared the fee award was a nondischargeable domestic support obligation. See 2025 IL 130931 at ¶7 n.1.
Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Order Barring Wife from Testifying at Trial as to Certain Matters as Form of Discovery Sanctions
In In re Marriage of Lugo, 2025 IL App (1st) 231478, after the wife repeatedly failed to complete a financial affidavit or respond to formal discovery, the trial court entered an order granting the husband’s motion for discovery sanctions and barred the wife from testifying as to financial matters at trial. Despite this sanction, the wife pursued claims for maintenance and a property settlement. The trial court denied the wife maintenance, awarded the wife 30 percent of the husband’s pension, ordered supervised parenting time, and required the wife to pay 100 percent of the supervisor’s fee and 50 percent of the minor child’s healthcare expenses. 2025 IL App (1st) 231478 at ¶4. The wife appealed on all issues, and the appellate court affirmed in total. Most relevant to the appellate court’s opinion was the discovery sanction issue. While barring a witness from testifying is a drastic sanction and should be exercised with caution, the sanction was entered a year before the trial actually commenced and the wife made no effort to purge the sanction by complying with discovery or asking the court to reconsider the sanction due to compliance. The record reflected numerous instances of the trial court warning the wife of the consequences of her actions. The court stated that “[a] pattern of dilatoriness should not be tolerated” and, therefore, the sanctions ruling was not an abuse of discretion. 2025 IL App (1st) 231478 at ¶98.
For more information about family law, see ADOPTION LAW (IICLE®, 2024). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.