Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction
   Property rights created by a judgment of dissolution become vested when the judgment is final, and a trial court lacks general jurisdiction to modify an order affecting these rights.  In re Hubbard
   Where modification of decree of dissolution is an agreed order, not contrary to public policy and not shown to have resulted from fraud or coercion, respondent can challenge it on appeal only if the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to enter it.  In re Steel
   Where the trial court has not expressly reserved jurisdiction to extend the term of rehabilitative maintenance, the court retains authority to extend the maintenance beyond the original term in term in view of subsection (a) of this section when the petition for modification is filed during the period set for rehabilitative maintenance.  Rice v. Rice
   The trial court lacks jurisdiction to extend the duration of the maintenance award once the original time period for maintenance has expired.  Rice v. Rice
   A trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider a respondent’s petition seeking modification of a fixed, limited award of rehabilitative maintenance which was filed after the maintenance obligation had been satisfied, and where the court did not reserve jurisdiction to review such an award.  Rice v. Rice
   The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant defendant’s petition to modify as to the marital residence when in the interim between the entry of the judgment and the filing of defendant’s petition to modify, the trial court terminated the maintenance provision, leaving nothing further to modify with respect to maintenance.  In re Clark
   Where the court had jurisdiction to modify the distribution of the proceeds, it was not necessary to reverse and remand the portion of the order which did so.  In re Demond
   Trial court has inherent jurisdiction to consider future child support in a dissolution proceeding and need not expressly retain jurisdiction.  In re Petramale
   Where there were no facts of record that demonstrated whose circumstances had changed, or in what manner, or who accepted what benefits from whom, there could be no estoppel to prevent wife from asserting that the court did not have jurisdiction to modify a divorce decree.  Hartmen v. Hartman
   A trial court’s order purportedly clarifying the supplemental judgment disposing of the property of the parties pursuant to the dissolution of their marriage, which actually modified the property rights of the husband, and which was entered more than 17 months after the supplemental judgment, was not effective, as the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter such a modification.  In re Kekstadt
   Where the petition for modification did not request that any increase be retroactive, and petitioner first requested this relief in a later petition for rehearing which was abandoned, this issue was not properly before the court.  Scott v. Scott
   Where an original divorce decree was entirely silent with regard to apportionment of any income tax refund, wife could not by her petition, requesting the award of income taxes withheld from her salary which had been included in a joint income tax return, involve the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate property rights upon which the final word had already been spoken in the decree.  Brickey v. Brickey
   The property rights created in a divorce decree become vested and after 30 days the court is without jurisdiction to modify them.  Brickey v. Brickey

Law of the Case
   The law of the case doctrine was inapplicable to preclude the court from modifying a maintenance award upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances.  In re Connors

Back to 750 ILCS 5/510 Home Page