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.
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.
- Beneficial interest designation on retirement account trumped marital settlement agreement (MSA) and ex-wife was entitled to retirement account proceeds upon ex-husband’s death. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed a trial court’s order which had granted summary judgment in favor of a decedent ex-husband’s father, who sought to invalidate the expectancy interest of his deceased son’s ex-wife with respect to ex-husband’s retirement accounts. The ex-husband had designated his ex-wife as the primary beneficiary and his father as the secondary beneficiary before their divorce. The ex-husband never changed the beneficiary designations after the divorce. The father argued that the judgment of dissolution of marriage implicitly revoked the ex-wife’s beneficiary designation. The Appellate Court reversedholding that there was no termination of the ex-wife’s expectancy interest in the retirement accounts. The language of the MSA awarded ex-husband his retirement accounts as his sole and separate property but was silent as to ex-wife’s expectancy or beneficial interest in such accounts. Further, being awarded property in a judgment of dissolution of marriage means gaining the ability to control who will be the new owner after one dies. The Court distinguished the case at bar from Herbert, 2018 IL App (1st) 172135 which dealt with a MSA which contained specific language “waiv[ing]…all property rights and claims which he or she now has or may hereafter have.” Such language in the Herbert MSA extinguished ex-wife’s expectancy interest in ex-husband’s 401(k) which was akin to a property right or a claim that ex-wife ‘may hereafter have.’This case underscores the importance of executing revised beneficiary designations post-divorce or including language in the MSA that both parties waive off on any property rights and claims which either party has at the time of the divorce, or which may arise thereafter. Mowen v. Kelly, 2025 IL App 4th 240906.
Mowen v. Kelly - Trial court’s ruling denying ex-husband’s petition to terminate maintenance on the basis of cohabitation affirmed.The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the ex-husband’s amended motion to terminate maintenance, finding that the ex-wife was not in a de facto marriage pursuant to Section 510(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA). Applying the Herrin factors, while ex-wife and her boyfriend maintained a lengthy romantic dating relationship, they never lived together; they maintained separate finances; and their actions lacked future planning indicative of a marital relationship. The Court noted that occasional financial transfers, shared travel, and periodic overnight stays were insufficient to establish a de facto marriage. Because the ex-wife and her boyfriend were not cohabitating within the “common meaning” of the term, Section 510(c) of the IMDMA did not apply. In addition, four of the six Herrin factors weighed against de facto marriage. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.In re the Former Marriage of Culm, 2025 IL App (1st) 240566.
In re the Former Marriage of Culm