2015 IL App (2d) 140530
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Lorena and Jeffrey divorced in 2007 after a long marriage; Jeffrey was ordered to pay permanent maintenance (monthly plus annual true‑up, capped for calculation purposes).
- Lorena began an exclusive dating relationship with Michael in 2006; over several years Michael spent many weekends at Lorena’s home but maintained his own residence and separate finances.
- Jeffrey petitioned under 750 ILCS 5/510(c) (Feb 2013) to terminate maintenance, alleging Lorena cohabited with Michael on a resident, continuing, and conjugal basis; he alternatively sought modification under 510(a); Lorena later sought an increase under 510(a).
- At trial the court admitted Facebook posts by Lorena and Michael (but not third‑party comments) to show how they presented their relationship; it also admitted accountant letters about Jeffrey’s income over a hearsay objection.
- The trial court found a de facto marriage and terminated maintenance (ordering Lorena to repay ~ $70,000); the appellate court reversed, holding the evidence showed an intimate dating relationship, not cohabitation rising to a de facto marriage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jeffrey) | Defendant's Argument (Lorena) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Facebook posts | Posts show how couple publicly presented relationship; admissible non‑hearsay (not offered for truth) | Posts are hearsay, lack foundation, and are not probative | Court: posts by Lorena/Michael admissible to show representation of status; third‑party posts not considered |
| Whether relationship constituted cohabitation (de facto marriage) under 510(c) | Relationship was long, spent many weekends together, traveled, shared social life and a joint golf membership; thus resident, continuing, conjugal cohabitation exists | Relationship was an intimate dating relationship: separate residences, no commingling of finances, no shared household or mutual financial dependence or intent of permanence | Court: trial finding of de facto marriage was against manifest weight — reversed; relationship was intimate dating, not marriage‑like |
| Use of Facebook status for impeachment | Status (“in a relationship”) impeaches Lorena’s trial testimony about intimacy/timing | Foundation lacking for some posts; Facebook mechanics ambiguous | Court: adequate foundation for posts by parties used for impeachment; limited consideration to party posts |
| Admissibility of accountant letters re: true‑ups (Exhibit 7) | Letters show Jeffrey’s income used to compute true‑ups | Hearsay; no business‑records foundation | Appellate court: argument forfeited and in any event documents largely cumulative and concerned periods before petitions; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Sappington, 106 Ill. 2d 456 (1985) (section 510(c) aims to end maintenance when a husband‑and‑wife‑like relationship effectively replaces the prior marriage)
- In re Marriage of Herrin, 262 Ill. App. 3d 573 (1994) (six common‑law factors for de facto marriage considered in context of household/financial interdependence)
- In re Marriage of Weisbruch, 304 Ill. App. 3d 99 (1999) (de facto marriage may be found where partners pool resources and look to one another for material support)
- In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill. 2d 489 (2004) (clarifies that an intimate/dating relationship is not a de facto marriage)
- In re Marriage of Susan, 367 Ill. App. 3d 926 (2006) (applies totality test and common‑law factors; warns against considering recipient’s need for support as the determinative inquiry)