In re Marriage of Andres, 2021 IL App (2d) 191146

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Andres, 2021 IL App (2d) 191146 - In re Marriage of Andres (2021) provides Illinois practitioners with guidance on cohabitation-based maintenance termination, emphasizing that trial courts evaluate concrete evidence—such as shared residence, financial commingling, and joint activities—under a manifest-weight standard that appellate courts rarely disturb. The case also reinforces a critical legal principle: court orders remain enforceable until formally modified, meaning parties must continue compliance even while litigation challenging those orders is pending, or face contempt findings.

The opposing counsel in your cohabitation case just handed you a roadmap to their own defeat. They simply don't know it yet.

In re Marriage of Andres, 2021 IL App (2d) 191146, stands as a masterclass in how Illinois appellate courts evaluate cohabitation claims, contempt findings, and fee disputes. If you're litigating maintenance termination or defending against one, this decision is required reading. The Second District laid bare exactly what trial courts need—and what appellate courts refuse to second-guess.

Here's your tactical breakdown.

The Cohabitation Standard: Concrete Evidence Wins

Nicholas Andres sought to terminate maintenance based on his ex-wife Alissa's alleged cohabitation. The trial court found cohabitation began November 27, 2017. Nick appealed, arguing the date was wrong.

He lost. Decisively.

The appellate court applied the manifest-weight standard—meaning the trial court's factual findings stand unless they're clearly against the weight of the evidence. That's an extraordinarily high bar. The Second District catalogued exactly what the trial court relied upon:


Shared residence
Intimate relationship
Joint holidays and travel
Financial interactions and commingling
Shared household functions


This isn't speculation. This is surveillance-grade documentation. Digital footprints. Bank records. Social media timestamps. Travel confirmations. The trial court found credibility where it mattered, and the appellate court refused to disturb that assessment.

Strategic takeaway: If you're pursuing a cohabitation claim, build your evidence architecture before you file. Subpoena the credit card statements. Pull the Venmo history. Secure the location data. Your opposition's digital exhaust is admissible, and most people don't realize how much they've documented their own cohabitation.

If you're defending against such a claim, assume every transaction, every check-in, every shared expense is already in your adversary's file. Act accordingly.

Contempt During Pendency: The Order Stands Until It Doesn't

Nick made a critical error that practitioners see repeatedly: he stopped complying with court orders while his termination petition was pending.

The trial court held him in contempt for failing to make required maintenance payments and produce paystubs. Nick's apparent logic was that if maintenance was going to be terminated anyway, why keep paying?

The appellate court's response was unequivocal: comply now, litigate later.

This principle is non-negotiable in Illinois family law. A court order remains enforceable until it's modified or vacated. The fact that you've filed a motion challenging that order provides zero protection against contempt. The purge provision—the mechanism allowing a contemnor to avoid sanctions by complying—remained in place because Nick's noncompliance was willful and ongoing.

Strategic takeaway: Never advise a client to stop payments or discovery compliance based on anticipated relief. Document every payment. Produce every paystub. Create an unimpeachable compliance record. Then, when you prevail on the underlying motion, you're positioned to recover overpayments rather than explaining contempt findings to your client.

The corollary for the receiving spouse: if your ex stops paying during litigation, file for contempt immediately. Don't wait. The Andres court made clear that interim noncompliance has consequences regardless of ultimate outcome.

Statutory Retroactivity: The Law at the Time of the Order Controls

Nick attempted to apply a post-order amendment to Section 505 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act when calculating past-due child support. The appellate court rejected this argument based on fundamental statutory interpretation principles.

The rule is straightforward: the version of the statute in effect when the support order was entered governs calculation of arrears under that order. Later amendments don't retroactively change what was owed.

Strategic takeaway: When calculating arrears or arguing modification, identify the precise statutory version applicable to each order at issue. This is particularly critical in cases with multiple modification orders over time—each order may be governed by different statutory language. Sloppy statutory analysis will get you sanctioned or, at minimum, embarrassed.

Attorney Fees and Billing Practices: The Trial Court Is the Gatekeeper

Nick challenged the fees billed by Alissa's counsel, MKFM, specifically targeting their 15-minute minimum billing increment and overall hours.

The appellate court applied abuse-of-discretion review—another high bar—and affirmed. The trial court found the time billed and the billing increment reasonable based on the record presented.

This holding reinforces what sophisticated practitioners already know: fee challenges are difficult to win on appeal. The trial court sees the litigation unfold. It knows which motions were necessary, which discovery was proportionate, which depositions were productive. Appellate courts will not micromanage those assessments.

Strategic takeaway: If you're billing, maintain contemporaneous, detailed time records. Justify every entry. Explain billing increments in your fee petition. Anticipate challenges and preempt them with documentation.

If you're challenging fees, do it at the trial level with specificity. Object to particular entries. Identify duplicative work. Highlight excessive increments with comparables. Don't expect the appellate court to rescue a poorly developed record.

The Digital Discovery Angle Your Opposition Ignores

The Andres opinion doesn't explicitly address digital evidence, but the cohabitation factors it affirms—shared residence, financial interactions, travel, holidays—are increasingly proven through electronic records.

Location services. Shared streaming accounts. Joint Amazon purchases. Tagged photos. Synced calendars. Cloud storage with shared access. These data points establish cohabitation with precision that witness testimony alone cannot match.

Conversely, if your client is the one facing a cohabitation claim, a forensic review of their digital footprint is mandatory before the other side subpoenas it. You need to know what exists before opposing counsel does.

This is where cyber-legal integration becomes tactical advantage. Most family law practitioners don't think about metadata, geolocation records, or cloud synchronization logs. The ones who do control the narrative.

Rule 213 and Evidentiary Preservation

The Andres court's affirmance also implicitly validates rigorous discovery practice. Late production can be excluded. Objections must be preserved. Expert disclosures under Rule 213 must be timely and complete.

If your opposition fails to comply with disclosure requirements, move to bar. If they produce documents late, object on the record and seek exclusion. The trial court's gatekeeping function—affirmed here—depends on practitioners enforcing the rules.

Strategic takeaway: Discovery failures are weapons. Use them. And ensure your own house is in order, because your adversary is reading the same cases you are.

The Bottom Line

In re Marriage of Andres confirms what aggressive, well-prepared litigators already practice:


Build cohabitation cases on documented facts, not inferences
Comply with court orders during pendency—no exceptions
Apply the correct statutory version to each order
Maintain bulletproof billing records
Preserve discovery objections and enforce disclosure rules


The trial court's discretion is broad. The appellate court's deference is substantial. Win at the trial level or don't win at all.

If you're facing a cohabitation claim, a contempt motion, or a fee dispute in a high-asset Illinois divorce, the time to build your strategy was yesterday. The second-best time is now.

Book a consultation with Steele Family Law. Your opposition is already preparing. The question is whether you'll be ready when they move.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, CEH, ISC2). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Consultation

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.