In re Marriage of Culm, 2025 IL App (1st) 240566

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Culm, 2025 IL App (1st) 240566 (1st Dist. Mar. 4, 2025).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Geoffrey Culm. Respondent‑Appellee: Alice (Hawman) Culm.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether respondent’s relationship with a non‑spouse (Michael Kolander) constituted a “de facto marriage” or cohabitation “on a resident, continuing conjugal basis” such that maintenance should terminate under the marital settlement agreement and 750 ILCS 5/510(c).
- Pleading sufficiency under section 2‑615 and the sufficiency of evidence to support termination at trial.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Geoffrey’s amended petition to terminate maintenance. Maintenance continued.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The settlement agreement (and §510(c)) conditions termination on cohabitation in a resident, continuing conjugal relationship and requires a court determination as to when such cohabitation began. The dispositive factual issue is whether the parties were living together in a manner constituting a shared residence and conjugal household.
- The court upheld the trial court’s factual findings that, despite a longdating/sexual relationship with shared trips, occasional overnight stays, social activities, gift exchanges and numerous small monetary transfers, Alice and Michael did not establish the hallmarks of a de facto marriage or shared domicile. Key negatives included: separate primary residences (different homes in the same complex and later separate towns), no joint bank accounts or credit, no joint ownership or joint mortgage/leases, no estate‑planning beneficiary designations, limited financial commingling, no mutual tax/financial disclosures or shared household obligations, and absence of public acts demonstrating they held themselves out as husband/wife to family and the community in a way sufficient to prove cohabitation on a resident, continuing conjugal basis.
- The court treated the issue as one of fact and found the trial court’s conclusion not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

5. Practice implications
- For petitioners seeking termination of maintenance, plead and develop evidence specifically addressing “residence” and the continuous, conjugal nature of the relationship (leases, shared address/mail, bills, joint accounts, beneficiary designations, affidavits from neighbors/family, evidence of household sharing and economic interdependence), not only travel, socializing, or intermittent overnight stays.
- At pleading stage, include factual allegations of cohabitation (dates, address, acts showing shared residence) to survive a 2‑615 motion; discovery should target documentary proof of domiciliary intent and financial merging.
- For drafting marital settlement agreements, consider defining “cohabitation” with objective criteria and procedures for determining alleged cohabitation (notice, temporary suspension, burden of proof) to reduce later disputes.
- Trial courts’ fact findings on de facto marriage/cohabitation receive deference; appellate reversal requires showing the findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence.