Peterson

In re Marriage of Peterson

1. Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Peterson, 2022 IL App (4th) 220129‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Sept. 28, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Carmen R. Peterson. Respondent‑Appellant: James R.J. Peterson. 2. Key legal issues Whether the trial court erred (manifest weight standard) in denying the obligor’s petition to terminate maintenance under 750 ILCS 5/510(c) on the ground that the recipient was in a “de facto marriage” (i.e., cohabiting on a resident, continuing conjugal basis) with a new partner. 3. Holding/outcome Affirmed. The appellate court concluded the trial court’s finding—that Carmen and her boyfriend Scott were in an intimate dating relationship but not in a de facto husband‑and‑wife relationship—was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 4. Significant legal reasoning (concise) - Statutory framework: 750 ILCS 5/510(c) terminates maintenance when the recipient cohabits on a resident, continuing conjugal basis; obligor bears initial burden to prove a de facto marriage, then burden shifts to recipient. - No bright‑line test; courts examine totality of circumstances (courts commonly consider length of relationship; time spent together; activities; interrelation of personal/financial affairs; vacations; holiday sharing). The inquiry focuses on signs of mutual commitment, permanence, and whether the relationship functions economically and practically like a marriage. - Key factual findings supporting reversal denial: the parties lived in separate states (Galesburg, IL vs. Logansport, IN), never resided together, saw each other mostly on 2–3 weekends per month (never every weekend), maintained completely separate finances (no joint accounts, beneficiaries, bills paid for one another), did not exchange keys or mail, and did not rely financially on each other (except a one‑time $6,000 loan repaid). Though they shared beds during visits, took trips together, exchanged gifts, and Scott performed home repairs, those factors—without residency/financial interdependence or daily cohabitation—were insufficient to establish a de facto marriage. - The court contrasted cases where de facto marriages were found because of near daily cohabitation and financial intermingling. 5. Practice implications - Parties seeking termination must prove residency/cohabitation and practical financial/day‑to‑day integration; mere committed dating, shared trips, social media displays, or periodic overnight stays are often insufficient. - Defense (recipient) should document separate residences, separate finances, lack of shared mail/keys, and limited time together. - Obligor should pursue evidence of daily presence, joint finances, shared household duties, mail/beneficiary changes, keys, utility/lease records, and contemporaneous statements indicating cohabitation. - Courts apply deferential manifest‑weight review to factual findings; careful fact development at trial (forensic financial records, travel/phone logs, witness testimony) is critical.