In re Marriage of Mattson

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Mattson, 2024 IL App (3d) 230307‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. Aug. 6, 2024) (Rule 23 non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Jeff Mattson. Respondent‑Appellee: Christine Mattson.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the former husband proved statutory “cohabitation” by the former wife such that maintenance terminates under 750 ILCS 5/510(c) (resident, continuing, conjugal relationship).
- Whether the former wife failed to make a good‑faith effort to become self‑supporting under 750 ILCS 5/510(A‑5)(2), justifying termination or reduction of maintenance.
- Evidentiary issue regarding admission of text/surveillance evidence and the trial court’s directed finding under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1110.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Jeff’s petition to terminate maintenance in full. The trial court’s directed finding in favor of Christine on cohabitation was upheld; the court also rejected the claim that Christine failed to make a good‑faith effort to become self‑supporting.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court applied the directed‑finding standard (735 ILCS 5/2‑1110): if the petitioner fails to make a prima facie case on an essential element (here, cohabitation), the court may enter judgment for the respondent.
- On cohabitation, the court focused on the statutory requirement of a resident, continuing, conjugal relationship. The evidence (surveillance showing intermittent car presence, social outings, occasional household assistance, separate residences, infrequent overnight stays per testimony, no financial commingling) was insufficient to establish the level of domestic integration and regular shared residency required to terminate maintenance. Testimony that the couple rarely slept together (said to be “infrequent” or 95% of the time apart), separate finances, and separate primary residences weighed against a finding of cohabitation.
- On the good‑faith‑effort claim, the record did not support that Christine had failed to make reasonable attempts to be self‑supporting; the court was not persuaded that changed circumstances justified termination.

5) Practice implications (takeaways for practitioners)
- Burden and proof: A movant seeking termination for cohabitation must prove more than periodic visits or parked cars—courts look for regular overnight residence, mutual financial/household integration, public presentation as partners, and frequency/duration of intimate contact. Surveillance and sporadic evidence are often insufficient.
- Good‑faith effort claims require a record of the recipient’s job searches, training efforts, health/childcare limitations, and marketability; absence of such proof undermines termination motions.
- Procedural strategy: be prepared to oppose or seek a Rule 2‑1110 directed finding at appropriate procedural points; preserve evidentiary rulings for appeal.
- Practical: document cohabitation comprehensively (overnight logs, shared bills, lease/title changes, communications about finances/household, consistent eyewitness testimony) before filing a termination petition.
- Note: decision is Rule 23 non‑precedential; persuasive but nonbinding.