Michelle A. Lawless
The Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC
161 N. Clark St. Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois
Telephone: (312) 741-1092
www.malfamilylaw.com; michelle@malfamilylaw.com.

1. Illinois Supreme Court holds provision in MSA requiring husband to pay wife 50% of the marital portion of his federal veterans’ disability payments was not pre-empted by federal law. The parties were divorced in 1992 and in 2019 the husband filed a petition to terminate the disability payments to wife arguing that such provision in the 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 did not preempt state court enforcement of a MSA wherein husband voluntarily agreed to pay to wife a portion of his benefits.  The Court distinguished the case at bar from Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 588 (1989) and Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214, 222 (2017), neither of which involved a party entering into an MSA and agreeing to use those benefits to pay an ex-spouse from benefits.  The Court reaffirmed that subject-matter and personal jurisdiction existed at the time of judgment thereby making the judgment not void. The Court also held that res judicata barred the husband’s collateral attack nearly 30 years later.In re Marriage of Tronsrue, 2025 IL 130596.

   In re Marriage of Tronsrue

2. Illinois Supreme Court upholds indirect finding of civil contempt and 508(b) attorney fee award.  After affirming the trial court and Appellate Court and ruling that husband’s argument that the federal Veterans Benefits Actpreempted an 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 attorney’s fees under section 508(b) of the IMDMA. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding indirect civil contempt or awarding fees given that the husband’s failure to comply without compelling justification. In re Marriage of Tronsrue, 2025 IL 130596.

   In re Marriage of Tronsrue

3. Illinois Supreme Court declines to recognize a cause of action for tortious interference with the parent-child relationship.After the mother of two children successfully regained custody of her 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 her custodial rights, seeking to recover expenses that she incurred in the federal district court to regain custody of her children.  Her complaint detailed both of their alleged involvement in the aiding and abetting of the kidnapping of the children from her 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 damages claimed.  The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, restating that the Illinois legislature is the proper venue for Illinois to create such cause of action.  In its decision, the Court reviewed the basic tenets of tort law including thatin order for a cause of action in tort to exist there must be a duty, breach of that duty, and damages, and the litany of existing caselaw both in Illinois and other states which have dealt with this issue.  In declining to create a new tort in Illinois for tortious interference with the parent-child relationship where 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 her request was for nearly $500,000.  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 footnote of opinion).  Hulsh v. Hulsh, 2025 IL 130931.

   Hulsh v. Hulsh

4. Appellate Court affirms trial court’s order barring wife from testifying at trial as to certain matters as a form of discovery sanctions.  After wife repeatedly failed to complete a financial affidavit or respond to formal discovery, the trial court entered an order granting husband’s motion for discovery sanctions and barred wife from testifying as to financial matters at trial. Despite this sanction she pursued claims for maintenance and a property settlement.  The trial court denied her maintenance, awarded her 30% of husband’s pension, ordered supervised parenting time and required wife to pay 100% of the supervisor’s fee and 50% of the minor child’s healthcare expenses.  Wife appealed 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 trial actually commenced and 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 wife of the consequences of her actions. The Court stated that a patter of dilatoriness should not be tolerated and therefore, the ruling was not an abuse of discretion.  In re Marriage of Lugo,  2025 IL App (1st) 231478.

   In re Marriage of Lugo