In re Marriage of Hubble, 2022 IL App (4th) 200657-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Hubble, 2022 IL App (4th) 200657‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. Jan. 12, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Rachelle Hubble. Respondent‑Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Todd Hubble.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in finding petitioner was in a de facto marriage with her paramour (affecting maintenance).
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding respondent dissipated marital assets by incurring $113,706 in medical debt.
3. Whether the 60% / 40% marital property division (in petitioner’s favor) was erroneous.

- Holding / outcome
The Fourth District affirmed. The trial court did not err in (1) finding a de facto marriage and denying maintenance, (2) finding respondent dissipated marital assets by choosing out‑of‑network medical care that generated significant debt, and (3) awarding petitioner 60% of marital property.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- De facto marriage: the court reviewed the factual record (frequency and character of cohabitation/sexual relationship, shared trips and gifts, joint social/religious activities, assistance with medical matters, the paramour’s role in arranging housing that petitioner occupied with an expectation she would later purchase). Although petitioner disputed sleeping/overnight evidence, the trial court’s factual findings about the relationship’s nature were supported by testimony (texts, gifts, vacations, journal entries) and thus were not clearly erroneous. These findings supported denial of maintenance.
- Dissipation: petitioner presented evidence that respondent selected out‑of‑network Mayo Clinic care after a snowmobile accident when in‑network providers were available and procedures were not emergency care, resulting in roughly $113k of medical bills. The trial court found that conduct amounted to wasteful dissipation of marital assets. The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s weighing of that evidence.
- Property division: the court upheld the 60/40 split as a proper exercise of discretion considering dissipation and other marital factors.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
- Plead and preserve dissipation claims early, but note courts may admit late evidence if trial court deems appropriate — still risky to rely on leniency.
- De facto marriage inquiries are intensely fact‑driven; preserve and develop factual records (texts, calendars, gifts, shared expenses, lease/ownership structure, testimony about intent and reputation).
- Incurring avoidable out‑of‑pocket debt (e.g., elective out‑of‑network care) can constitute dissipation and shift property division. Counsel should document alternatives and communications about provider choice.
- When opposing maintenance, investigate and develop evidence of third‑party domestic arrangements that could undercut need (even nontraditional/part‑time cohabitation).