In re Marriage of Doolin

── In re Marriage of Doolin ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 250166-U NOTICE Decision filed 06/05/26. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-25-0166 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for not precedent except in the Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed the same. under Rule 23(e)(1). APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of PENNY DOOLIN, ) Macon County. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) and ) No. 16-D-504 ) GREG DOOLIN, ) Honorable ) Phoebe S. Bowers, Respondent-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE McHANEY delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Vaughan and Hackett concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: We reverse the circuit court’s order directing Greg Doolin to pay Penny Doolin the same share of his military pension from sources other than his exempt disability benefits. We affirm the circuit court’s order denying Greg Doolin’s request to modify the 2018 maintenance award. ¶2 Penny Doolin (Penny) and Greg Doolin (Greg) married in 1990 and divorced in July 2018. Pursuant to their marital settlement agreement (MSA), Penny was awarded monthly maintenance and a future one-half share of Greg’s military retirement pension. ¶3 In 2024, Greg was involuntarily retired from the United States Army due to a medical disability. Thereafter, Greg’s retirement benefits were disability-based. Penny sought her MSA- awarded share of Greg’s military pension from the applicable federal agency, but her request was 1 denied because Greg’s retirement benefits were now disability-based and thus no longer matched the wording of the pension benefit designated in the MSA. ¶4 After his medical disability-based retirement, Greg filed a petition seeking to modify maintenance, contending that there had been a substantial change in the parties’ financial circumstances. Penny filed a motion asking the circuit court to order Greg to pay her the monthly pension amount provided for in the MSA. ¶5 The circuit court denied Greg’s petition to modify maintenance and ordered Greg to pay Penny the MSA-designated monthly pension amount from “other sources of income.” Following the denial of Greg’s request for reconsideration of both issues, he timely appealed. ¶6 I. BACKGROUND ¶7 The parties’ MSA provided Penny monthly maintenance of $745.73. Greg was also required to maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy with Penny as the beneficiary so long as the maintenance award remained intact. The MSA also included a provision which awarded Penny: “one-half of the HUSBAND’S disposable military retired pay