Higher Prices Alone May Not Be Enough to Reopen Illinois Maintenance

Anyone paying for groceries, insurance, housing, or medical care knows that the cost of living has increased. But does inflation—or simply spending more money than you did when you divorced—automatically allow you to return to court and seek more maintenance?

A recent Illinois appellate decision says no. The important question is not simply whether expenses have increased. The party seeking modification must show that the change has substantially affected his or her financial needs.

In In re Marriage of Tompkins, 2026 IL App (3d) 250482-U, the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, affirmed the dismissal of a former wife's request to increase maintenance because she had not alleged sufficient facts demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances.

There is one important qualification: Tompkins is a Rule 23 order, designated by the “-U” in its citation. It therefore is not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1). Nevertheless, it provides a useful recent illustration of how Illinois courts approach requests to modify maintenance.

What Happened in Tompkins?

When John Tompkins and Amy Itoku divorced in 2019, their marital settlement agreement recognized that John's income as a self-employed portfolio manager fluctuated. The parties therefore created an unusual maintenance formula. Amy received a $6,500 monthly draw, followed by an annual “true-up” based upon John's actual income. Their agreement contained a detailed schedule specifying the percentage Amy would receive at various income levels, including income exceeding $4 million. 

Years later, Amy sought to modify maintenance. Among other things, she alleged that:

• John had gone from self-employment to salaried employment; 
• his income had increased dramatically; 
• her medical expenses had increased by approximately $10,000 per year; and 
• because of uncertainty concerning her maintenance payments, she had reduced expenditures for vacations, health-club memberships, vehicles, streaming services, and household help. 

The trial court dismissed her petition, and the appellate court affirmed.

A Change in Expenses Is Not Necessarily a “Substantial Change”

Illinois law provides that a maintenance award may be modified or terminated “only upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances.” 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5). The statute then directs the court to consider factors including changes in employment, earning capacity, income, property, the recipient's efforts to become self-supporting, and other equitable circumstances. 

The appellate court in Tompkins emphasized an important distinction: life circumstances can change without financial need changing substantially enough to justify modifying maintenance.

The court explained that a substantial change generally requires a change in either:

1. the needs of the spouse receiving maintenance; or 
2. the paying spouse's ability to pay. 

Amy alleged increased medical expenses and that she had cut back her lifestyle. But she did not allege that those changes left her unable to meet her expenses, that her financial needs had materially increased, or that the maintenance she was receiving was inadequate to meet those needs. The court therefore held that those allegations, standing alone, were insufficient.

That distinction is important.

It is not enough to say:

“Everything costs more now.”

The stronger case is:

“My necessary expenses have materially increased, here are the numbers showing the increase, and my present income and maintenance are no longer sufficient to meet those needs.”

What About the Paying Spouse Earning More Money?

Tompkins also illustrates another important limitation.

Amy alleged that John's income had increased dramatically after the divorce. Ordinarily, a significant increase in the payor's income is one of the factors a court considers under section 510(a-5). But the parties' MSA had specifically anticipated both different forms of employment income and income levels exceeding $4 million. The appellate court concluded that the agreement already addressed the circumstances upon which Amy relied. 

This issue must be considered together with the current version of section 510(a-5). Illinois law now provides that the foreseeability or contemplation of a future event generally cannot be used to defeat a claim of substantial change unless that future event was expressly specified in the court order or agreement incorporated into the judgment. 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5). 

That makes careful drafting of marital settlement agreements increasingly important. If the parties want a particular future event—retirement, changes in compensation, receipt of bonuses, or another defined circumstance—to be treated in a particular way, the agreement should say so expressly.

Does Tompkins Mean Inflation Never Matters?

No.

The case should not be read as creating a blanket rule that inflation or increased costs can never support modification of maintenance. What Tompkins demonstrates is that merely identifying increased expenses or reduced discretionary spending is not enough. The moving party must connect those circumstances to a material change in actual financial need.

That distinction is also important because child support cases are different. Illinois courts have long recognized that children's needs may increase as they grow older and as the cost of living rises. The First District recently repeated that principle in In re Marriage of Cox, 2026 IL App (1st) 242290, ¶ 52, citing In re Marriage of Sweet, 316 Ill. App. 3d 101, 105 (2000). 

So Tompkins should not be generalized into a rule that inflation is irrelevant to every form of support.

The Practical Lesson

A former spouse considering a maintenance modification should not rely simply upon inflation, higher prices, or a comparison of today's expenses with expenses from several years ago.

A persuasive petition should identify specific, material changes and explain their financial consequences. That usually means comparing income, necessary expenses, health costs, employment circumstances, assets, and financial resources at the time of the prior order with those circumstances today.

The lesson of Tompkins is fairly straightforward: a higher cost of living may explain why someone spends more money, but the court still needs facts showing that the person's financial need has substantially changed.

And before filing, the marital settlement agreement itself should be reviewed closely. Sometimes the parties have already agreed how the very change now being complained about will affect maintenance.

Contact LSR Family Law Group

If you have questions about whether an existing maintenance or child support obligation may be subject to review or modification under Illinois law, contact Steve Rakowski at LSR Family Law Group at (847) 412-9950 to discuss the particular facts of your case.