Holdridge

In re Marriage of Miller

# In re Marriage of Miller, 2024 IL App (3d) 230098 1) Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Miller, 2024 IL App (3d) 230098 (3d Dist. Mar. 20, 2024). - Petitioner-Appellee: Tamie Miller. Respondent-Appellant: Douglas (Doug) Miller. 2) Key legal issues - Whether the former spouse’s relationship with a paramour constituted “living with another person on a continuing conjugal basis” under a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) provision that terminates maintenance. - Whether the trial court’s finding that no de facto marriage/cohabitation existed was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 3) Holding/outcome - Appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the petition to terminate maintenance and remanded for further proceedings. (Justice Davenport delivered the opinion; Justice Holdridge dissented.) 4) Significant legal reasoning (concise) - The MSA terminated maintenance on the wife’s death, remarriage, or “living with another person on a continuing conjugal basis.” The central inquiry is objective evidence of continuing conjugal cohabitation (frequency/regularity of overnight stays, household integration, shared social life, public presentation as a couple), not strictly joint finances or formal legal status. - The record contained multiple indicia of a conjugal, continuing relationship: frequent overnight stays (multiple witnesses and prior discovery responses showed nights per week), free access to the house (garage opener, storage of personal items), shared travel and vacations, celebration of holidays together, attendance at each other’s family events, Francois’s role at and attendance of the wife’s children’s events, use of the same service providers, and being listed as an emergency contact. - Although there were inconsistencies in testimony and limited pooling of finances, the appellate majority concluded the totality of the objective contacts supported a finding of continuing conjugal cohabitation and that the trial court’s contrary factual conclusion was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court therefore reversed and remanded for disposition consistent with that view. 5) Practice implications for family-law attorneys - Maintenance-termination clauses tied to “cohabitation” will be interpreted by courts based on objective, multifactor evidence; absence of joint bank accounts or formal marriage does not defeat a finding of continuing conjugal cohabitation. - To prove (or defend against) termination, gather and preserve contemporaneous evidence: overnight-frequency records, travel receipts/tickets, photos, social-media posts, guest/household access (garage openers, keys), testimony about public presentation and attendance at family events, and witnesses. - Draft MSA termination language with clear, tailored definitions (e.g., specify required duration, frequency of overnight stays, shared financial/legal indicia) to reduce litigation over ambiguous “cohabitation” standards. - Consider appealing or moving for reconsideration when trial fact-finding ignores cumulative objective indicia of conjugal cohabitation.