## Facts

- Karen M. Brankin and Gary W. Brankin married on September 12, 1981; they had one child who was emancipated by the dissolution proceedings.
- At the relevant time, Gary (age 58) was an endodontist earning about $400,000 annually; Karen (age 55) was a tenured public school teacher earning about $75,000 annually.
- The marital lifestyle was affluent, including a home purchased for over $1 million and frequent travel on Gary’s private jet.
- Karen filed for dissolution on August 10, 2007.
- On September 27, 2010, the parties executed a marital settlement agreement resolving all issues except (1) maintenance and (2) life-insurance security for maintenance.
- Under the settlement, Karen received assets valued between approximately $605,340 and $800,100, including cash, retirement accounts (including her Teachers’ Retirement System account), and funds from Gary’s 401(k).
- Gary had recently suffered a heart attack and asserted his health would likely reduce future work capacity and income.
- The trial court entered a dissolution judgment incorporating the settlement agreement, awarded Karen permanent maintenance of $3,000 per month, and denied her request to secure maintenance with Gary’s life insurance.
- Gary appealed the maintenance award’s amount and duration; Karen cross-appealed seeking higher maintenance and reversal of the denial of life-insurance security.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Karen permanent maintenance of $3,000 per month in light of her income and assets and Gary’s health and claimed future income reduction.
2. Whether the trial court erred by declining to set maintenance at a level that more closely equalized the parties’ post-dissolution incomes.
3. Whether the trial court erred by denying, without analysis, Karen’s request to require life insurance as security for maintenance.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the award of permanent maintenance of $3,000 per month.
- The court rejected Karen’s argument that maintenance should more closely equalize post-dissolution incomes.
- The court vacated the denial of life-insurance security for maintenance and remanded for the trial court to exercise discretion and determine whether insurance should be ordered and on what terms.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions.

## Legal Principles

- Maintenance determinations (amount and duration) are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- In setting maintenance, courts must consider statutory factors, including the parties’ needs, earning capacities, marital standard of living, duration of the marriage, age and health, and the distribution of marital property.
- Maintenance is not required to equalize the parties’ incomes; the governing inquiry is an equitable assessment of needs and ability to pay under the statutory factors.
- A court may order life insurance as security for maintenance, but it must actually exercise discretion; a summary denial without analysis warrants vacatur and remand.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld permanent maintenance of $3,000 per month as a permissible exercise of discretion after weighing the statutory factors and rejected any rule requiring income parity, but it required a discretionary ruling on whether life insurance should secure maintenance, vacating the unexplained denial and remanding for further proceedings.


In re Marriage of Brankin, 967 N.E.2d 358 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2012)