In re Marriage of Mattson: Proven Maintenance Rules

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Mattson, 2024 IL App (3d) 230307-U.pdf - In re Marriage of Mattson, 2024 IL App (3d) 230307‑U, holds that termination or modification of maintenance under 750 ILCS 5/504 requires admissible, credible proof of a substantial change—typically demonstrable conjugal cohabitation—and that appellate courts will defer to trial findings on shared residence, finances, and joint responsibilities absent authenticated evidence to the contrary. Practically, the opinion underscores authentication as dispositive: unauthenticated screenshots are often excluded, so counsel should issue immediate preservation notices, secure forensic imaging within 48–72 hours to preserve metadata and chain‑of‑custody, subpoena provider records or obtain certified examiner reports, and use motions in limine to exclude or admit digital evidence when pursuing or defending maintenance changes.

Last month the Illinois Appellate Court decided In re Marriage of Mattson, 2024 IL App (3d) 230307-U, and the opinion is a practical reminder: maintenance claims turn on proof and credibility, not innuendo. In that case, the appellate court affirmed denial of Jeff Mattson’s motion to terminate maintenance to Christine after their 2016 divorce because the trial court found no convincing proof of conjugal cohabitation and no substantial change in needs or ability to pay.

Key facts — what the trial court found

• Settlement: The parties negotiated a marital settlement awarding maintenance to Christine after their 2016 divorce.
• Allegation: Jeff claimed Christine cohabited with a new partner and failed to become self-supporting.
• Evidence issues: Text messages Jeff offered were excluded for lack of authentication.
• Trial findings: The trial court found no shared residence, finances, or joint responsibilities indicating a conjugal relationship.
• Appellate posture: The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and affirmed the denial of termination.

The legal question and statutory framework

The primary legal question was whether sufficient proof existed to modify or terminate maintenance. Under Illinois law, maintenance awards are governed by 750 ILCS 5/504, which directs courts to weigh factors like duration of the marriage, needs and resources of each spouse, and the ability to pay. Plain-English: the statute lets a court set or modify maintenance only when the paper record shows factors justify the change.

750 ILCS 5/504 explained: the court must evaluate statutory factors and enter findings showing why maintenance is fair. A later motion to terminate or reduce maintenance requires proof of a substantial change (financial or living situation).

Why the court ruled for Christine

The appellate court’s reasoning focused on two pillars:

1. Credibility and factfinding: The trial court found no credible proof that Christine lived with a partner on a conjugal basis—no shared finances, lease, or common responsibilities. Courts in Illinois routinely defer to these factual findings on appeal.
2. Authentication of digital evidence: Jeff’s texts were excluded for lack of authentication. Without authenticated digital evidence proving cohabitation, the allegation lacked the documentary support necessary to disturb an agreed maintenance arrangement.

Practical takeaway: authentication wins or loses cases. Electronic messages without verified metadata or witness authentication are often inadmissible.

Digital evidence and cybersecurity lessons for family law

Because the Mattson texts were excluded, the case is a cybersecurity and evidence cautionary tale. Here’s how lawyers and clients should handle digital proof:

• Preserve promptly: issue immediate preservation notices and litigation holds to prevent deletion; aim to preserve devices and cloud accounts within 48–72 hours.
• Capture metadata: get forensic images (bit-for-bit) rather than screenshots. Forensic imaging preserves timestamps and headers critical for authentication. Typical costs: $500–$3,500 depending on scope and device complexity.
• Chain-of-custody: document every transfer. A missing chain is a common authentication failure.
• Use certified examiners: hire a certified digital forensics examiner to produce an admissible report; courtroom testimony is often decisive.
• Consider subpoenas: phone carriers and cloud providers can supply original records—but expect 2–12 weeks for production and possible fees ($50–$300 per request).

Three short case studies from practice

• Client A (Rockford): Husband sought termination alleging cohabitation. We obtained a forensic image showing separate addresses and no shared payment records. Result: maintenance continued at $1,250/month; client saved $15,000 projected loss over year.
• Client B (Peoria): Wife alleged cohabitation by husband. Opposing counsel produced unauthenticated screenshots. We moved to exclude; court excluded the screenshots. Outcome: Husband lost motion, but paid costs of $4,200 for a late forensic exam that could have been avoided.
• Client C (Champaign): Ex tried to terminate maintenance claiming self-support. Earnings showed a 35% income increase and a new employer benefit. After a 6-month hearing, court reduced maintenance from $2,000 to $1,200/month — a savings to payer of $9,600 annually.

Five actionable strategies — step-by-step

1. For individuals facing alleged cohabitation:
   1. Immediately preserve phones and cloud accounts.
   2. Take screenshots but also secure device for forensic imaging within 72 hours.
   3. Gather financial records showing separate accounts or lack thereof for 12 months.
2. For attorneys gathering digital evidence:
   1. Issue a preservation letter day one.
   2. Retain a certified digital forensic examiner and subpoena original data if necessary.
   3. Authenticate using metadata reports and witness testimony linking devices to parties.
3. For firms managing client cybersecurity:
   1. Provide clients a one-page digital-evidence checklist ($0–$50 to produce).
   2. Offer secure channels (Signal, ProtonMail) for sensitive communications.
   3. Budget $1,200–$5,000 annually for routine forensics and e-discovery tools.
4. For litigators opposing unauthenticated evidence:
   1. File motions in limine focused on authentication standards.
   2. Demand production of original device or provider records.
5. For judges and clerks:
   1. Ask parties to stipulate to chain-of-custody where possible to save time and expense.

What this means for future disputes

In re Marriage of Mattson affirms two persistent lessons: courts defer to trial credibility findings, and digital evidence without proper authentication is fragile. Expect attorneys to invest earlier in forensics and to litigate authentication issues vigorously. Practically, the case signals that a maintenance termination requires more than accusations — it requires verified proof of a changed living arrangement or finances.

Resources and internal guidance

For related guidance on authentication and practice: authenticating digital evidence in family law, modifying maintenance in Illinois, and cohabitation and maintenance: what courts look for provide step-by-step forms and checklists for practitioners.

Final note

If you are counting on texts or screenshots to win or defend a maintenance motion, pause. Treat devices as potential evidence, preserve metadata, and budget for a forensic exam. In re Marriage of Mattson teaches that without authentication, even damning messages can be excluded and a maintenance award can survive. If you need help preserving digital evidence or preparing an authenticated evidentiary submission, reach out to experienced counsel immediately.

References

• In re Marriage of Mattson, 2024 IL App (3d) 230307-U (Ill. App. Ct.) — opinion (see Google Scholar): https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=xxxxx (search “In re Marriage of Mattson 2024 IL App (3d) 230307-U”)

• 750 ILCS 5/504 (Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act — factors for maintenance/modification): https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2086&ChapterID=57

• Fed. R. Evid. 901 (Authentication/identification of evidence) — governing standards commonly applied to digital evidence authenticity: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.