## Facts

- A dissolution judgment required Eugene Logston to pay maintenance to Kate Logston.
- After Eugene failed to pay, Kate filed a petition seeking enforcement through contempt in the circuit court.
- Eugene responded and filed a petition seeking termination of his maintenance obligation.
- The circuit court found an arrearage, entered judgment for the unpaid maintenance, found Eugene in contempt for nonpayment, and denied termination.
- Eugene sought reconsideration, arguing his income (Social Security, private pension, disability insurance) was exempt from judgment under Illinois’s personal property exemption statute, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, § 12-1001.
- The circuit court rejected the exemption defense, reaffirmed contempt, and declared § 12-1001 invalid as unconstitutionally vague based on the phrase “exempt from judgment.”
- Eugene appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court because the circuit court invalidated a statute.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois’s personal property exemption statute (§ 12-1001) provides a defense to contempt used to enforce a maintenance obligation.
2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by finding Eugene’s nonpayment wilful and holding him in contempt.
3. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Eugene’s petition to terminate maintenance.
4. Whether § 12-1001 is unconstitutionally vague.

## Decision

- The court held that § 12-1001 does not bar use of contempt to enforce a maintenance order and does not provide a defense to a contempt citation for wilful nonpayment.
- The court affirmed the finding of wilful contempt and the enforcement judgment for arrearages, concluding there was no abuse of discretion.
- The court affirmed denial of termination of maintenance, concluding no abuse of discretion.
- The court reversed the circuit court’s ruling that § 12-1001 was unconstitutionally vague, construing the statute as addressing collection remedies rather than contempt.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory exemptions from “judgment, attachment or distress for rent” restrict certain creditor collection mechanisms but do not eliminate a court-ordered duty to pay maintenance.
- A court’s coercive contempt power to enforce support obligations is not defeated by a debtor’s claim that his income is exempt from ordinary collection processes.
- Continued nonpayment of support constitutes prima facie evidence of contempt; the obligor bears the burden to show inability to pay or other sufficient cause, and wilfulness is largely for the trial court to decide.
- Maintenance modification or termination requires a substantial change in circumstances; the trial court’s determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Courts should construe statutes to preserve constitutionality where a reasonable limiting construction is available; “judgment” in the exemption statute has an established legal meaning and is not void for vagueness.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court held that the personal property exemption statute does not shield a maintenance obligor from contempt for wilful nonpayment, affirmed the contempt finding and denial of maintenance termination, and reversed the trial court’s ruling that the exemption statute was unconstitutionally vague.


In re Marriage of Logston, 469 N.E.2d 167 (Ill. 1984)