In re Marriage of Aspan, 2021 IL App (3d) 190144

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Aspan, 2021 IL App (3d) 190144 (Mar. 25, 2021), appeal from Circuit Court of Grundy County (Judge Sheldon Sobel). Petitioner‑appellant: Karyn Aspan. Respondent‑appellee: Thomas R. Aspan. Judgment: appellate court affirmed termination of spousal maintenance.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the payor established that the maintenance recipient was cohabiting in a “resident, continuing conjugal relationship” with a third party so as to terminate maintenance under 750 ILCS 5/510(c).
- Burden of proof and appropriate evidentiary showing (no requirement of proof of sexual relations; courts look to totality of circumstances).

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court’s finding that Karyn and Ronald Hessa began a resident, conjugal cohabitation in December 2017 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Maintenance was terminated effective December 2017.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court applied the established multi‑factor approach (Snow v. Snow and related Illinois authority): length/time spent together, nature of activities, interrelation of personal/financial affairs, vacations/holidays together, etc., viewed under the totality of the circumstances.
- Key factual findings supporting cohabitation: Karyn moved into Ron’s mobile home and later into a house purchased in December 2017 (moved in immediately); shared household duties and single bathroom/nightly sleeping; pooled finances and joint‑tenancy bank account with large transfers ($23,000 deposit; $12,305 cashier’s check disbursed to “Karyn and Ronald Aspan” used to purchase the Wilmington house); Ron purchased a replacement car used exclusively by Karyn; joint social/family activities (taking Ron’s granddaughters to events, vacations, boating); utility bills in Karyn’s name but shared payments; celebratory activity after closing. Trial court discredited the landlord/tenant explanation for lack of rent evidence and found the parties’ narrative credible overall.
- Appellate deference given to trial court credibility findings; reversal would require a finding that the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence, which was not shown.

5) Practice implications
- For payors seeking termination: assemble a contemporaneous, documentary record (bank records, cashier’s checks, title/closing docs, utility bills, receipts for household repairs, travel records, social media posts, witness testimony) to prove financial intermingling and shared household life; establish a clear start date for cohabitation.
- For recipients defending maintenance: preserve and produce documentary proof of a landlord/tenant relationship (lease, rent checks, separate finances, contemporaneous statements denying romantic cohabitation) and challenge credibility on intermingled items.
- Trial court credibility is critical; appellate review is deferential. Be precise about timing (effective date) and create a robust timeline with corroborating documents.