Lopez v. Ortiz
| Decision Date | 11 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-19-0416,4-19-0416 |
| Citation | 2020 IL App (4th) 190416 -U |
| Parties | In re MARRIAGE OF J. ANTONIO G. LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, and ELENA ORTIZ, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County
Honorable Matthew Maurer, Judge Presiding.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying former husband's motion to terminate maintenance.
¶ 2 Petitioner, J. Antonio G. Lopez, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to terminate his maintenance obligation to respondent, Elena Ortiz. We affirm.
¶ 4 The parties were married in June 1986 and had two children, Andres (born in 1991) and Marco (born in 1992). In June 1996, Antonio filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In September 1998, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage, which incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement. At the time of dissolution, Antonio was 42 years old and working as a cardiologist in Springfield, Illinois. Elena was 39 years old and "a full-time homemaker." The parties' marital settlement agreement reflects that Marco, the parties' youngest child, had "been diagnosed as severely autistic" and had "special needs for education and medical treatment due to his autism." The parties "anticipated that given [Marco's] disability *** and the amount of time and attention required of Elena as a result of such disability, Elena [would] be unable to obtain employment during [Marco's] minority ***."
¶ 5 Under the marital settlement agreement, Antonio agreed to assume the marital debts, totaling in excess of $156,000. He also agreed to pay Elena $94,720 to facilitate a move by Elena and the minor children to California, where the parties believed Marco's special educational and medical needs could be better met. The parties' next agreed that Antonio would pay Elena maintenance of $4500 per month for one year. Maintenance would then increase to $5000 per month for another year, after which it would be reviewable. With respect to the children, the parties agreed to joint legal custody. However, Elena would be the primary caretaker of the children and they would reside with her on a daily basis. Antonio agreed to pay Elena child support of $3562 per month.
¶ 6 Following the divorce, both parties eventually relocated to California. In January 2006, the trial court transferred the case to San Diego County, California. In October 2006, a California court ordered that Illinois law was to be utilized in deciding the issue of maintenance, and in November 2007, it entered an order continuing Antonio's $5000 per month maintenance obligation and establishing a maintenance arrearage. In June 2017, Elena asked the California court to increase spousal support. Antonio responded by seeking termination of his maintenance obligation. In February 2018, the California court transferred venue of the case back to Illinois to address the maintenance issue.
¶ 7 In March 2018, Antonio filed a motion to terminate maintenance with the Sangamon County, Illinois, circuit court. He asserted that, since the parties' divorce, there had been a substantial change in circumstances such that maintenance should be terminated. He pointed out that the parties' children were adults, he had been ordered to continue providing support for Marco, and that he and Elena had been divorced for almost 20 years. Antonio also asserted that although Elena was capable of being employed, she made no efforts to obtain employment since the marriage was dissolved. Additionally, he asserted that he was 62 years old and suffered from "multiple medical conditions that could limit his ability to continue working for an extended period of time."
¶ 8 In May 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing in the matter, during which both parties testified. Elena, then age 60, stated she continued to reside with the parties' youngest child, Marco, who was then 26 years old and "severely autistic." She had been Marco's caregiver for his entire life and described him as nonverbal and child-like. Marco had behavioral issues and could not be left alone. Elena testified the parties' oldest child, Andres, lived independently.
¶ 9 Regarding her education and work history, Elena testified that she had an associate's degree in fashion merchandising. Prior to 1990, she did "some home decorating for friends." She also previously worked in the retail field and in the banking field as a bank teller and an assistant bank manager. Elena had not been employed outside the home since before Andres's birth in 1991, and had not sought employment since the parties' divorce in 1998. She stated that Marco was her "full-time responsibility" and caring for him "takes up a lot of [her] time." Elena acknowledged that, since 2014 or 2015, she was paid $12.50 an hour for being Marco's caretaker through a government program in California. In 2018, she received $46,470 through that program, and in 2019, she expected to make $49,944.
¶ 10 Additionally, in 2018, a California court increased Antonio's child support obligation, requiring him to pay $3674 per month. Elena testified that Antonio continued to pay her maintenance totaling $60,000 per year, i.e., $5000 per month. Only her maintenance income was taxable. The income she received through the California caretaking program and for child support was tax free.
¶ 11 Elena's most recent financial affidavit in the case, dated May 22, 2019, showed total monthly living expenses of $9866. She also reported monthly debt payments of $2795.47 and that her monthly expenses and debts exceeded her monthly income by $387.17 per month. At the hearing, she acknowledged her reported debts included Andres's student loan debt and agreed that she did not cosign for his loans. Nevertheless, she reported owing $52,160 toward Andres's student loans and making monthly payments of $1083. Elena's other reported debts included money owed for state and federal taxes ($4542), a loan for attorney's fees ($9400), credit card debt ($247), and money owed for funeral and burial insurance ($6600). She listed several other debts, totaling over $4000 that were reportedly "in collection." However, she acknowledged that the balances for those debts should be reduced as the balances she listed were from September 2018 and she had been making payments since that time. Elena also acknowledged that the funeral and burial insurance she listed was purchased for herself and Marco in April 2018, the month after Antonio filed his motion to terminate maintenance. Elena testified she paid $600 per month for that insurance.
¶ 12 Elena's assets included her vehicle with a fair market value of $2000, life insurance policies for herself and Marco, a checking account in her name with a balance of $200, and a joint checking account with Andres with a balance of $2500. She acknowledged that the money she received from the State of California for caring for Marco was deposited into the joint account she had with Andres. She agreed that money in that account was primarily used by Andres "to pay for his student loans and to live." Andres had attended film school but was no longer in school and was working. Elena testified Andres was an associate producer and editor for a show in Burbank, California. He also deposited the money he earned from his job into the joint account. Elena explained that she was helping Andres pay for some of his college loans and, to her knowledge, Antonio had not contributed anything toward Andres's college expenses. On questioning by the trial court, Elena explained that the reason she deposited her income from caring for Marco into the joint account was "to make sure that [Andres's] student loans don't go into default."
¶ 13 Elena further testified that she used money in the joint account for emergency expenses or if she needed to pay a bill and had not yet received a "check" for maintenance and child support. She stated that if she withdrew money from the joint account, she would "try to put it back in so that it's just there *** in case we do need it." On examination by Antonio's counsel, Elena agreed that from December 2017 to March 2019, she made transfers from her personal bank account to the joint account in the amount of $17,878. She also acknowledged making cash deposits totaling $11,456.92 during that same time frame.
¶ 14 Elena testified that money she received for maintenance and child support was deposited into her personal account. She utilized that account to pay living expenses for herself and Marco. She agreed that for a period of about six months she helped Andres by making his car payments using funds from her personal account.
¶ 15 Elena also described her care of Marco. She testified that, as a minor, Marco attended school five days a week from approximately 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. At age 20, he completed his high school program and began attending a day program at Stein Education Center (Stein). The day program was also five days a week with hours from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. After two years at Stein, the program ended and Marco began staying at home with Elena. Elena explained that she "couldn't find the right program for [Marco]" and he remained at home for two years. He then began a day program called People's Choice Bliss (Bliss), which was five days a week from the hours of 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Marco was in the Bliss day program for approximately one year until the program ended in November 2018.
¶ 16 After the Bliss program ended, Elena investigated another day program for Marco called the TERI program. Marco was on a waiting list but had not yet been approved for the program. Elena agreed that Marco's caseworker, who assisted...
To continue reading
Request your trial