In re Marriage of Churchill, 2022 IL App (3d) 210026

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Churchill, 2022 IL App (3d) 210026. Petitioner-Appellee: Amy Churchill. Respondent-Appellant: John Churchill.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Respondent’s second petition to terminate maintenance on the ground that the obligee (Amy) was cohabiting/engaged in a de facto marriage with a third party (Jared).
2. Whether the evidence established cohabitation/de facto marriage as a matter of law (or conversely, whether the trial court’s factual findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence).
3. The effect of post‑trial conduct and additional evidence occurring after the first appeal (Churchill I) on the maintenance obligation.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions. The court concluded the maintenance should not have continued given the record establishing a de facto marital relationship between Amy and Jared.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court reviewed the totality of the evidence concerning the parties’ relationship since the prior proceedings. It relied on circumstantial and testimonial evidence showing a sustained, marriage‑like relationship: frequent and repeated overnight stays (including use/parking of Jared’s RV and vehicles on Amy’s property), shared travel and vacations (including shared hotel rooms and family trips), regular attendance at family events and children’s activities, daily communication while apart, use of Amy’s address for mail, and Jared’s access to Amy’s home (garage keypad). The appellate panel treated these factors cumulatively and concluded they supported a finding of cohabitation/de facto marriage. The court rejected the notion that brief or intermittent absences (due to Jared’s work travel) defeated cohabitation when the pattern otherwise evidenced a family‑type relationship. Given the sufficiency of the record, reversal and directed relief (rather than a new trial) was ordered.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- When seeking termination of maintenance for cohabitation/de facto marriage, assemble comprehensive, time‑sequenced evidence: overnight patterns, shared residences (including RVs), joint travel, involvement with each other’s children/family, shared purchases/mail, access to home, and communications.
- Circumstantial evidence can be dispositive; trial courts must evaluate the totality of circumstances, not single factors in isolation.
- New or changed facts developed after earlier rulings can change the analysis — re‑filing a termination petition may be viable when the relationship has evolved.
- Preserve and develop documentary proof (photos, travel records, hotel receipts, mail, vehicle registrations/parking, keypad logs, social‑media/dating‑app evidence) and witness testimony to build a cumulative record sufficient for appellate review.