In re Marriage of Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236 (1st Dist., 2d Div., June 20, 2023). Petitioner-Appellant: Richard C. Edson. Respondent-Appellee: Julee C. Edson. Appeal from Boone County (Cir. Ct., Hon. Ronald A. Barch). Judgment: affirmed.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether maintenance payments (awarded by a 2017 Marital Settlement Agreement) could be terminated under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act where the payee allegedly cohabits in a “de facto marriage.”
2) What factual showing satisfies the petitioner’s burden to prove cohabitation on a resident, conjugal, and continuing basis such that maintenance termination under 750 ILCS 5/510(c) is warranted, despite MSA language addressing modification.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Richard’s petition to terminate maintenance. The court held Richard failed to meet his burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Julee was in a de facto marriage with Curt Leaich (i.e., resident, conjugal, continuing relationship).

- Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
The trial and appellate courts reviewed extensive testimonial and documentary evidence showing an intimate, ongoing dating relationship beginning in late 2017: joint vacations and holidays, occasional overnight stays (in Julee’s bedroom), assistance with household projects and purchases, attendance at family events, and social recognition (e.g., obituary mention, wedding attendance/contribution). However, the court concluded those facts established intimate dating and intermittent cohabitation, not a resident, conjugal, and continuing relationship rising to a de facto marriage under the Act. The court emphasized the petitioner’s burden to prove the specific legal elements (residence, conjugal relationship, continuity and holding out as spouses) by a preponderance; credibility determinations and weight of conflicting testimony were for the trial court and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The MSA’s non‑modification clause did not foreclose termination where Illinois law (§510(c)) permits termination upon a qualifying cohabiting relationship; nonetheless, the statutory standard still must be met.

- Practice implications (practical takeaways for attorneys)
- When litigating termination of maintenance for “cohabitation”/de facto marriage, assemble clear, objective proof of the statutory elements: shared residence (lease/mortgage, utility bills), consistent overnight pattern, financial interdependence (joint accounts, shared expenses, beneficiary designations), public holding out as spouses, and duration/continuity.
- Testimonial accounts of affection, attendance at events, occasional overnight stays, or sporadic financial assistance alone may be insufficient.
- Expect appellate deference to trial court credibility findings — build corroborative documentary and third‑party testimony.
- Review MSA language carefully: even with a §502(f) modification waiver, statutory termination grounds (§510(c)) remain relevant if proven.