In re Marriage of Colbert

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Colbert, 2024 IL App (5th) 230196‑U. Petitioner‑Appellant: Roger D. Colbert Jr.; Respondent‑Appellee: Stacey L. Colbert.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether respondent’s cohabitation with a non‑spouse on a “resident, continuing, and conjugal” basis (triggering termination of maintenance by operation of law under 750 ILCS 5/510(a‑5)(1), (c)) was proven.
- Whether the trial court properly awarded contribution toward respondent’s attorney fees without expressly applying the statutory factors in 750 ILCS 5/504(a).

3. Holding / outcome
The Fifth District reversed and remanded. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of Roger’s petition to terminate maintenance and its related orders (including the fee contribution), and remanded for further proceedings because the trial court erred in its findings and failed to apply statutory fee factors.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Evidence: Roger presented private‑investigator surveillance showing repeated visits (16 documented instances) by respondent to the boyfriend’s Roxana residence between January and March 2022 — photos of her vehicle, observations of her retrieving mail with a key, and lack of reliable evidence that she actually occupied an alternative Waterloo rental. This evidence—if credited—bore on whether respondent had established a resident, continuing, conjugal relationship sufficient to terminate maintenance under section 510(a‑5).
- Trial court error(s): The appellate opinion found the trial court’s disposition problematic in two respects: (1) the court rejected termination based on its factual finding that respondent did not cohabit on the statutory basis despite the surveillance evidence; and (2) the court ordered Roger to contribute to respondent’s attorney fees without expressly considering or mentioning the statutory 504(a) factors (financial resources, relative needs, ability to pay, conduct in the proceedings, etc.).
- Remedy: Because the court failed to make the required statutory findings for the fee award and sua sponte rejected the termination claim without adequate factual analysis, the appellate court reversed and remanded for the trial court to re‑evaluate cohabitation and to make explicit findings applying section 504(a) before awarding fees.

5. Practice implications
- When seeking termination of maintenance for cohabitation, assemble direct, time‑specific evidence: surveillance logs, photographs, mail/keys, utility or address records, testimony showing shared residence and conjugal aspects.
- If contesting fee awards, insist the trial court explicitly analyze and state the 504(a) factors on the record; absent such findings, fee awards are reversible.
- Counsel should preserve factual findings on cohabitation (and alternative residence claims) because appellate review will scrutinize whether the evidence supports a statutory termination of maintenance and whether fees were awarded consistent with statutory criteria.