In re Marriage of Andres, 2021 IL App (2d) 191146

In re Marriage of Andres, 2021 IL App (2d) 191146

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Andres, 2021 IL App (2d) 191146 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Aug. 13, 2021).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Nicholas T. Andres; Respondent‑Appellee: Alissa Andres; Respondent‑Appellee counsel: Mirabella, Kincaid, Frederick & Mirabella, LLC (MKFM).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s factual finding that Alissa’s cohabitation began November 27, 2017 (affecting termination of maintenance) was erroneous.
- Whether the trial court erred in holding Nick in contempt for failing to make required maintenance payments and produce paystubs during the pendency of the termination petition.
- Whether a post‑order amendment to section 505 of the IMDMA should be applied when calculating past‑due child support on an earlier support order.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding MKFM’s billed time and a 15‑minute minimum billing increment reasonable.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all respects.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Factual findings (cohabitation): The appellate court applied the manifest‑weight standard and deferred to the trial court’s credibility and fact‑finding. The evidence the trial court relied upon (shared residence, intimate relationship, holidays and travel together, financial interactions, and shared household functions) supported the court’s determination of the cohabitation start date, and the record did not show that finding to be against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Contempt: The court upheld the contempt finding because parties must comply with court orders during litigation; even if maintenance was later terminated, failure to follow interim orders (payments and production of paystubs) justified contempt and a purge provision.
- Statutory application (section 505): The appellate court rejected the appellant’s attempt to apply a later statutory revision retroactively to change calculation of arrears; statutory interpretation principles and the timing of the support order governed which law applied.
- Fees and billing: Review was for abuse of discretion. The trial court’s acceptance of MKFM’s hours and 15‑minute billing increment was reasonable based on the record; attorney‑fee complaints were properly evaluated under the trial court’s gatekeeping role.

5) Practice implications
- Preserve documentary and discovery compliance: late production can be excluded and weaken arguments; timely exchange of paystubs and financials is critical.
- Proof of cohabitation requires concrete facts (shared residence, sexual relationship, financial commingling, shared parental/household roles); credibility determinations are difficult to overturn.
- Continue to comply with court orders during pendency — noncompliance can produce contempt even if ultimate relief favors the non‑moving party.
- Challenge expert testimony per Rule 213 and preserve objections to discovery violations.
- Fee and billing challenges face deferential review; maintain contemporaneous, detailed time records and justify billing increments.