In re Marriage of Hardy, 2023 IL App (4th) 220905-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Hardy, 2023 IL App (4th) 220905‑U. Petitioner‑Appellant: Lori A. Hardy. Respondent‑Appellee: John C. Hardy Jr. (4th Dist. Aug. 29, 2023; Rule 23 nonprecedential order.)

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the former‑husband proved the former‑wife was cohabiting in a de facto marriage such that mandatory termination of maintenance under 750 ILCS 5/510(c) was warranted (i.e., resident, continuing, conjugal relationship).
2. Whether termination of maintenance should be effective retroactive to the filing date of the petition (and whether reimbursement of payments thereafter was appropriate).

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court held the trial court’s order terminating maintenance was against the manifest weight of the evidence and reversed. The court concluded the former‑husband failed to prove the elements of a de facto marriage. (The trial‑court termination and related reimbursement order was vacated.)

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court applied the statutory standard for termination (cohabitation on a “resident, continuing, and conjugal basis”) and the manifest‑weight standard of review. Although the husband presented surveillance video, social‑media posts, testimony from a private investigator, and other circumstantial indicators of a long‑term relationship, the appellate panel found the evidence insufficient to show a resident, continuing, conjugal household like a marriage. The opinion relied on the mixed and inconclusive nature of the proof: testimony that the paramour maintained his own residence, worked, and had independent finances; intermittent presence at the wife’s house in surveillance clips; and earlier appellate precedent in the same case (2013 IL App (4th) 130027‑U) that had concluded similar evidence did not establish cohabitation on the required basis. The court emphasized that romantic involvement and social media/holiday appearances alone do not satisfy the statutory cohabitation criteria.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Burden and standard: Parties seeking termination of maintenance under §510(c) must prove the three elements (resident, continuing, conjugal) with clear, persuasive evidence—social‑media posts and sporadic surveillance often are insufficient.
- Focus on hard indicia: shared residence (exclusive or effectively exclusive use), intermingling of finances/assets, continuous day‑to‑day presence, household integration, and public representation as spouses are critical. Evidence that the alleged paramour maintains an independent residence and finances undermines a termination claim.
- Timing and remedies: be cautious when seeking retroactive termination or reimbursement—courts scrutinize the effective date and will not order reimbursement absent clear proof.
- Preserve comprehensive evidence: contemporaneous utility/lease records, mail delivery patterns, financial transfers, joint accounts, long‑term cohabitation statements from neutral witnesses, and consistent surveillance logs increase chance of success.