In re Marriage of Burris, 2019 IL App (5th) 180237-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Burris, No. 5-18-0237, 2019 IL App (5th) 180237-U (Ill. App. Ct. Apr. 17, 2019) (Rule 23 order, non-precedential). Petitioner-Appellee: Pam D. Burris. Respondent-Appellant: David P. Burris.

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court erred (manifest weight challenge) in awarding maintenance where respondent argued the obligee was cohabiting with another person on a "resident, continuing, conjugal" basis so as to terminate maintenance under 750 ILCS 5/510(c).

- Holding / outcome
Affirmed. The appellate court concluded the record did not show Pam was cohabiting with Randy Patton on a resident, continuing, conjugal basis; therefore maintenance award was proper and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The court reviewed the trial court’s factual findings for manifest-weight error. It applied the usual multi-factor approach for cohabitation inquiries (degree of sexual relationship, exclusivity, shared finances/expenses, joint accounts/titles/beneficiaries, shared household duties, duration, public representation as a couple, and mutual intent to be husband/wife). The trial evidence supported Pam’s testimony that: she moved in with Patton primarily because she feared the husband’s threatening conduct and for financial necessity; she and Patton slept in separate beds and were often apart for work; they did not share bank accounts, titles, rent, or wills/beneficiaries; she repaid a loan from him once she received a lump disability payment; they did not consistently celebrate holidays or present themselves as husband/wife; and Pam denied sexual relations with Patton. Daughter’s testimony suggested extensive phone/text contact and that Pam had once characterized Patton as a boyfriend, but the trial court credited Pam’s account. Given the totality of the evidence, the court reasonably found no resident, continuing, conjugal relationship.

- Practice implications
- Cohabitation determinations remain intensely fact-specific; appellate courts defer to trial-court credibility and factual findings unless against the manifest weight.
- To establish termination under §510(c), litigants should develop evidence on sexual relations, exclusivity, shared finances/assets, household integration, public representation, and duration. Mere shared lodging for safety/companionship or temporary assistance does not necessarily meet the statutory standard.
- Where domestic violence, stalking, or safety concerns motivate a move, courts may credit testimony that living together is non-conjugal; litigators should document motive, separate finances, lack of sexual intimacy, and absence of joint arrangements to defend maintenance awards.
- This Rule 23 decision is non-precedential but illustrates the evidentiary focus tribunals will apply.