2019 IL App (3d) 180208
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Amy and John Churchill divorced after a 17-year marriage with two children; temporary maintenance had been awarded during dissolution proceedings.
- John petitioned to terminate maintenance alleging Amy was cohabitating with her boyfriend, Jared, beginning after they met in late 2016 and began dating in February 2017.
- Evidence at the termination hearing: Amy and Jared had an intimate, sexual relationship, spent weekends together, vacationed together, and exchanged rings/gifts; Jared kept a sweatshirt and shoes at Amy’s home but maintained separate living quarters, business travel, and a permanent Texas residence.
- Testimony showed limited domestic integration: no joint finances, no shared bills or property, Jared did not perform regular household duties, had no key, and did not store substantial personal effects at Amy’s residence.
- The trial court concluded the relationship was an intimate dating relationship, not a resident, continuing conjugal (de facto marriage) relationship, and denied John’s petition to terminate maintenance.
- The court also found statutory factors supported awarding Amy permanent maintenance of $10,000 per month; John appealed both the denial of termination and the permanency of maintenance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (John) | Defendant's Argument (Amy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amy was cohabitating in a resident, continuing conjugal relationship so maintenance should terminate | John argued Amy and Jared lived together on a continuing conjugal basis (frequent overnight stays, vacations, gifts, involvement with children) | Amy argued the relationship was an intimate dating relationship without permanence: Jared maintained separate residence and finances and did not integrate households | Court held John failed to meet burden; relationship was dating, not de facto marriage, so maintenance termination denied |
| Whether maintenance should be permanent rather than time-limited under guidelines | John argued duration should be limited (guidelines or finite term) | Amy argued she lacks employability and the marriage duration, standard of living, and disparity in earning potential justify permanent maintenance | Court held guidelines did not apply (John’s income > $500,000) and statutory factors supported permanent maintenance of $10,000/month |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Herrin, 262 Ill. App. 3d 573 (Ill. App. Ct.) (factors for de facto marriage/cohabitation assessment)
- In re Marriage of Bramson, 83 Ill. App. 3d 657 (Ill. App. Ct.) (consider effect of relationship on financial need and permanence)
- In re Marriage of Thornton, 373 Ill. App. 3d 200 (Ill. App. Ct.) (burden on spouse seeking termination of maintenance)
- In re Marriage of Toole, 273 Ill. App. 3d 607 (Ill. App. Ct.) (review standard for de facto marriage findings)
- In re Marriage of Snow, 322 Ill. App. 3d 953 (Ill. App. Ct.) (termination appropriate where new partner lived with recipient long-term)
- Sappington v. Sappington, 106 Ill. 2d 456 (Ill.) (cohabitation/factors where partner resided in marital home for years)
- In re Marriage of Culp, 341 Ill. App. 3d 390 (Ill. App. Ct.) (permanent maintenance appropriate where recipient not employable to marital standard)
- In re Marriage of Dunseth, 260 Ill. App. 3d 816 (Ill. App. Ct.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for maintenance awards)