In re Marriage of Grant, 2024 IL App (1st) 240029-U.pdf

Published: 7/31/2025
By Jonathan D. Steele
In re Marriage of Grant, 2024 IL App (1st) 240029-U.pdf

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Grant, 2024 IL App (1st) 240029-U.pdf - The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court's rulings in the Colbert divorce case, finding that the evidence showed Stacey Colbert was cohabiting with her boyfriend, which is grounds for terminating maintenance payments under Illinois law. The court also found that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to Stacey without properly addressing the statutory factors required under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.

Appellate Court Reverses Ruling on Maintenance and Attorney Fees in Colbert Divorce Case

The Illinois Appellate Court recently issued a decision in In re Marriage of Roger D. Colbert Jr. and Stacey L. Colbert, reversing the trial court's rulings on maintenance payments and attorney fees in the couple's divorce case. The appellate opinion provides important guidance for courts evaluating petitions to terminate maintenance based on cohabitation and awarding attorney fees in divorce proceedings.

Background of the Colbert Divorce Case

Roger Colbert had been ordered to pay his ex-wife Stacey $2,045 per month in maintenance following their divorce. In April 2022, Roger filed a petition seeking to terminate his maintenance obligation, alleging that Stacey was cohabiting with her boyfriend, Jody Short, on a resident, continuous, and conjugal basis. Under Section 510(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA), cohabitation is grounds for terminating maintenance payments.

The trial court held a hearing on Roger's petition but ultimately ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that Stacey and Short were cohabiting. It denied Roger's request to terminate maintenance. The court also ordered Roger to contribute $3,000 toward Stacey's attorney fees incurred in defending against the petition. However, the trial court's ruling did not specifically address the statutory factors courts are required to consider when awarding attorney fees in divorce cases under Section 508 of the IMDMA.

The Appellate Court's Analysis on Cohabitation

Roger appealed the trial court's decision, and the Illinois Appellate Court reversed on both the maintenance and attorney fee issues. Regarding cohabitation, the appellate court found that the evidence strongly indicated that Stacey was living with Short on a resident, continuous, and conjugal basis, thereby satisfying the statutory standard for terminating maintenance.

The evidence presented at trial included surveillance showing Stacey and Short frequently staying overnight at each other's residences, as well as address records indicating they used the same address for various purposes. Under Illinois law, courts evaluate the totality of the circumstances to determine if a couple is cohabiting, including factors such as:

Prior Illinois appellate decisions have found cohabitation to exist even when couples maintain separate residences in certain cases. For example, in In re Marriage of Herrin, the court ruled that the ex-wife was cohabiting despite not living with her partner full-time, based on evidence they stayed over, vacationed together, and had a long-term intimate relationship.

The Colbert appellate court determined the trial court's conclusion that the evidence was insufficient was against the manifest weight of the evidence. It found that Stacey and Short were clearly cohabiting in light of their frequent overnights, intertwined affairs, and shared address usage. The court held Roger's maintenance obligation should be terminated retroactive to when the cohabitation began.

The Appellate Ruling on Attorney Fees

Regarding the $3,000 attorney fee award to Stacey, the appellate court found the trial court erred by not properly addressing the statutory factors under IMDMA Section 508. When deciding whether to award fees, Illinois courts must consider relevant factors including:

  1. Each party's income and property
  2. Needs of each party
  3. Whether the party seeking fees lacks sufficient access to assets or income to pay
  4. The other party's ability to pay the fees
  5. The complexity of the issues
  6. Whether any improper conduct increased the cost of litigation

The trial court's ruling did not specifically address these factors or detail its reasoning for concluding that a $3,000 contribution from Roger was appropriate. The appellate court instructed the trial court to reexamine Stacey's fee petition on remand and make the required statutory findings.

This case illustrates the importance of presenting a strong evidentiary case when seeking to terminate maintenance based on cohabitation. Petitioners should gather extensive documentation of overnights, address records, and other indicia of a resident, continuous and conjugal relationship. The appellate court will not hesitate to reverse a trial court ruling if the manifest weight of the evidence demonstrates cohabitation.

On attorney fees, the Colbert decision reminds trial courts that they must make specific findings on the statutory factors when deciding whether to award fees. A conclusory ruling lacking detailed analysis of each party's financial circumstances and needs will be vulnerable to reversal on appeal.

Advice for Cohabitation and Attorney Fee Disputes

For individuals paying or receiving maintenance, it's crucial to be aware that cohabitation can be grounds for terminating support obligations in Illinois. Those seeking to end payments should consult with an experienced divorce attorney to assess the viability of a termination petition and develop a strategy to gather persuasive evidence.

Recipients of maintenance should understand that their living arrangements can impact their right to continued support. Even without living together full-time, frequent overnights and other indicia of a conjugal relationship may be sufficient to constitute cohabitation. Recipients should keep detailed records to defend against any termination petitions.

In attorney fee disputes, both parties should be prepared to present comprehensive evidence of their income, assets, and needs. Counsel should argue the IMDMA 508 factors in detail at any fee hearing. Parties facing an adverse fee ruling should consider an appeal if the court fails to properly address the statutory factors, as occurred in Colbert.

By understanding the key legal standards and arguments surrounding cohabitation and attorney fees in divorce cases, parties can more effectively assert their rights in court and reach appropriate resolutions of maintenance and fee disputes. The Colbert case provides a roadmap for navigating these common post-divorce issues in Illinois.

References

Here are the references mentioned in the article:

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.