In re Marriage of Brosh

Overview

The Fifth District affirmed the trial court's denial of Kenneth Brosh's petitions to terminate or modify maintenance and child support, and affirmed the grant of Donna Brosh's petition to extend maintenance. The court found no de facto marriage, no credible evidence of changed financial circumstances for Kenneth, and no abuse of discretion in extending maintenance for 30 months at $3,000/month to allow Donna time to complete renovations on rental properties awarded in the dissolution. Donna's request for Rule 375 sanctions was denied.

Key Facts

Dissolution entered December 2019; Donna awarded $3,000/month maintenance (reviewable January 2022) and $1,837.50/month child support

Donna received 9 rental properties (few move-in ready); Kenneth received 25 properties

Kenneth alleged Donna was in a de facto marriage with "Richard" — but evidence showed Richard spent only one night in Donna's home over 2.5 years

Donna borrowed money from Richard but repaid him upon receiving back-due support

Kenneth claimed decreased income but the trial court found his testimony not credible; income set at $313,493/year

Kenneth stopped paying maintenance entirely in January 2022; Donna went on state aid for food and medical benefits

Donna incurred over $35,000 in attorney fees and had to liquidate working capital

Despite obstacles, Donna had 6 of 9 properties fully rented at trial; Kenneth had only 8 of 25 rented

Procedural History

St. Clair County Circuit Court (Judge Patrick R. Foley). Kenneth filed petitions to terminate maintenance and modify child support in October 2020. Donna counter-petitioned to extend maintenance. An 11-day evidentiary hearing was held. The trial court entered a comprehensive order on February 7, 2023. Kenneth appealed; the appeal was held in abeyance pending resolution of attorney fees, then reinstated in March 2025. Fifth District, Rule 23 order , decided June 1, 2026.

Holdings

De facto marriage (manifest weight standard): Kenneth failed to prove Donna cohabited with another on a "resident, continuing conjugal basis" under 750 ILCS 5/510(c) . The trial court's denial was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Change in circumstances (abuse of discretion): Kenneth failed to provide credible evidence of decreased income. The trial court's denial of his petition to terminate/modify maintenance was not an abuse of discretion.

Extension of maintenance (abuse of discretion): The trial court properly considered all Section 504(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in extending maintenance for 30 months at $3,000/month.

Child support: The trial court did address Kenneth's petition, reducing support from $2,301.69 to $1,493/month. Kenneth's claim it was never heard was contradicted by the record.

Prenuptial agreement arguments: Waived because Kenneth voluntarily dismissed his prior appeal from the dissolution judgment.

Legal Principles

750 ILCS 5/510(c) — termination of maintenance upon conjugal cohabitation; six-factor totality-of-circumstances test from In re Marriage of Miller , 2015 IL App (2d) 140530

750 ILCS 5/510(a-5) — modification/termination requires substantial change in circumstances

750 ILCS 5/504(a) — 14 factors for maintenance entitlement and extension

In re Marriage of Heroy , 2017 IL 120205 — abuse of discretion standard for maintenance decisions

Credibility determinations on income are entitled to deference on appeal ( In re Marriage of Osseck , 2021 IL App (2d) 200268 )

Voluntary dismissal of a prior appeal constitutes waiver of issues that could have been raised therein

Practical Implications

De facto marriage claims require substantial evidence: Occasional dating, borrowing money (repaid), and spending a few holidays together is insufficient — practitioners must show a relationship that is a genuine "substitute for marriage"

Credibility is paramount in income disputes: Lack of transparency about rental income fatally undermined Kenneth's changed-circumstances claim; ensure clients provide complete, verifiable financial documentation

Rental property awards require realistic timelines: Courts may extend maintenance to allow a recipient spouse time to bring awarded properties to income-producing status, especially post-COVID

Failure to pay support can boomerang: Kenneth's nonpayment forced Donna onto state aid and strengthened her case for extended maintenance

Preserve appellate rights: Voluntarily dismissing an appeal waives all issues that could have been raised, including prenuptial agreement challenges

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order — it is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). The decision is highly fact-specific, particularly regarding the nature of Donna's relationship with Richard and the unique rental-property-based property division. The court's discussion of the de facto marriage factors and maintenance extension analysis constitutes application of well-established law rather than new legal interpretation.