Bohnsack v. Bohnsack

13 Citing cases

  1. Roy v. Roy

    2019 Ill. App. 5th 170087 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 58 "A marital settlement agreement is a contract." In re Marriage of Haller, 2012 IL App (5th) 110478, ¶ 26, 980 N.E.2d 261 (citing In re Marriage of Bohnsack, 2012 IL App (2d) 110250, ¶ 9, 968 N.E.2d 692). Therefore, a marital settlement agreement is determined using contract law principles.

  2. Van Hoveln v. Van Hoveln (In re Marriage of Van Hoveln)

    2018 Ill. App. 4th 180112 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 18 times

    In addition, periodic maintenance, typically a specified amount payable over a period of time in regular intervals, is the preferred form of maintenance, except under " ‘exceptional circumstances.’ " In re Marriage of Bohnsack , 2012 IL App (2d) 110250, ¶ 10, 360 Ill.Dec. 199, 968 N.E.2d 692 (quoting Lamp v. Lamp , 81 Ill. 2d 364, 374, 43 Ill.Dec. 31, 410 N.E.2d 31, 35 (1980) ).¶ 31 In the case sub judice , the trial court never specified the nature of maintenance it was awarding, nor did Kyria identify the form of maintenance being sought.

  3. In re Haller

    2012 Ill. App. 5th 110478 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 36 times

    ¶ 26 A marital settlement agreement is a contract. In re Marriage of Bohnsack, 2012 IL App (2d) 110250, ¶ 9, 360 Ill.Dec. 199, 968 N.E.2d 692. "A settlement agreement is in the nature of a contract and is governed by principles of contract law." K4 Enterprises, Inc. v. Grater, Inc., 394 Ill.App.3d 307, 313, 333 Ill.Dec. 198, 914 N.E.2d 617, 624 (2009).

  4. In re Kincaid

    972 N.E.2d 1218 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 32 Marital settlement agreements and joint parenting agreements are contracts. See In re Marriage of Bohnsack, 2012 IL App (2d) 110250, ¶ 9, 360 Ill.Dec. 199, 968 N.E.2d 692;In re Marriage of Purcell, 355 Ill.App.3d 851, 856, 292 Ill.Dec. 136, 825 N.E.2d 724 (2005). Such agreements are governed by the same rules as those applying to the construction of contracts.

  5. McLain v. McLain (In re McLain)

    533 B.R. 735 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that "the policy underlying section 523 and favors the enforcement of familial obligation over a fresh start for the debtor"

    Periodic maintenance is the more common type of maintenance and is the preferred form since maintenance in gross is appropriate only in exceptional circumstances. In re Marriage of Bohnsack, 2012 IL App (2d) 110250, 360 Ill.Dec. 199, 968 N.E.2d 692, 694–95. A determination that an obligation is, in substance, part of a property settlement does not preclude a finding that it was in the nature of support for DSO purposes. Marriage of Adamson, 308 Ill.App.3d at 769–70, 242 Ill.Dec. 198, 721 N.E.2d 166 (exercising concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether a debt is dischargeable under section 523(a)(5) ).

  6. Downey v. Downey+Rippe, LLC

    2021 Ill. App. 2d 200572 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    Our task is to determine the intent of the parties when the contract was executed as it relates to the claimed condition precedent. See In re Marriage of Bohnsack, 2012 IL App (2d) 110250 ¶ 9. We must examine the language of the agreement and give its terms their plain and ordinary meaning.

  7. In re Marriage of Andrews

    2020 IL App (5th) 190373 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    Marital settlement agreements, like the property division stipulation in this case, are considered contracts. In re Marriage of Haller, 2012 IL App 110478, ¶ 26, 980 N.E.2d 261 (citing In re Marriage of Bohnsack, 2012 IL App (2d) 110250, ¶ 9, 968 N.E.2d 692). "The best indicator of the parties' intent is the language used in [the] marital settlement agreement."

  8. In re Marriage of Goodman

    2019 Ill. App. 2d 170621 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Absent exceptional circumstances, periodic maintenance is the preferred form of maintenance. In re Marriage of Bohnsack, 2012 IL App (2d) 110250, ¶ 10 (citing Lamp v. Lamp, 81 Ill. 2d 364, 374 (1980)). Nevertheless, the supreme court has recognized that section 504(a) of the Act authorizes the trial court to award maintenance in gross if the court "finds it to be appropriate in a particular case."

  9. Estate of Panagiotis v. Panagiotis

    2016 Ill. App. 142244 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    Areti, on the other hand, posits that Lydia's claim should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion where Lydia did not raise her argument in the trial court until after the court had already ruled on the motion to vacate. See In re Marriage of Bohnsack, 2012 IL App (2d) 110250, ¶ 8 ("[w]hen reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to reconsider that was based on new matters, *** this court employs an abuse of discretion standard." (internal quotation marks omitted.)). ¶ 57 We need not resolve the dispute surrounding our standard of review, because under either standard, the trial court did not err.

  10. Blondin v. Blondin

    2015 Ill. App. 2d 140671 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    We review the trial court's denial of posttrial motion for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Bohnsack, 2012 IL App (2d) 110250, ¶ 8. "A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or