Circuit court had no authority to amend a ten year old divorce judgment. or to order an additional payment to wife under the theory that it was enforcing the original divorce judgment.
Trial court should have reopened divorce judgment where she did not understand the terms of the stipulation.
Lifetime maintenance provision of divorce judgment does not violate public policy because the husband agreed to it and he is estopped from contesting it.
Trial court can clarify ambiguous provision of divorce judgment without violating prohibition against modification Trial courts have authority to do all things “necessary and proper” to carry out its orders and judgments.
Trial court properly modified judgment when a loan from husband to wife was discharged in bankruptcy, by relieving husband of his obligation for provide a QDRO which was a quid pro quo for repayment of the loan.
Amended judgment dividing retirement plan was not ambiguous. Given wife’s lack of action for 16 years, the interest of finality of judgments outweigh the interest in reopening the judgment.
Motion to revise maintenance allows court to increase, reduce or terminate, even though the only motion before the court was to increase.