In re Marriage of Larsen, 2023 IL App (1st) 230212

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Larsen, 2023 IL App (1st) 230212 (1st Dist., 2nd Div., Dec. 29, 2023). Petitioner‑appellee: Melissa K. Larsen. Respondent‑appellant: David A. Larsen.

- Key legal issues
Whether respondent met his burden under 750 ILCS 5/510(c) (and the parties’ MSA) to terminate indefinite maintenance by proving petitioner was cohabiting on a “resident, continuing, and conjugal” basis amounting to a de facto marriage; whether the trial court erred in granting a directed finding at the close of petitioner’s adverse testimony and whether the denial of respondent’s petition was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Holding/outcome
Judgment affirmed. The trial court correctly granted a directed finding for Melissa after respondent’s case‑in‑chief failed to establish a prima facie case of cohabitation/de facto marriage. The appellate court upheld that determination and found the trial court’s denial was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The MSA and dissolution judgment permitted David to petition to modify/terminate maintenance upon Melissa’s remarriage, death, or cohabitation that constituted a de facto marriage. After a four‑day hearing, the trial court granted Melissa’s oral motion for a directed finding at the close of David’s case. The appellate court reviewed whether David presented sufficient evidence of resident, continuing, conjugal cohabitation. The court emphasized the multi‑factor nature of a de facto marriage inquiry (shared residence/household, financial interdependence/commingling, joint acquisition or use of property, public representation, length/frequency of sexual relations and overnight stays, and mutual support). Here the proof showed a long‑standing dating/sexual relationship, sporadic overnight visits and assistance (e.g., help at a move or home inspection), social media photos and attendance at events, but no joint finances, no shared mortgage or lease, no proof Brent contributed to household expenses, no joint accounts or estate changes, and Melissa purchased and financed her residence independently. Those facts were insufficient to establish the level of residency, economic partnership, and mutual dependency required for a de facto marriage.

- Practice implications (concise)
Petitioners seeking termination of maintenance for “cohabitation” must present objective, corroborated evidence of more than dating or occasional overnight stays — focus on documents showing shared residence, pooled finances, joint accounts/loans/mortgages, mutual beneficiary designations, joint household bills, tax filings, or clear public representation as spouses. Respondents should be prepared to move for directed findings if the evidence is limited to social/media or anecdotal testimony. Conversely, defending parties should emphasize independent title/financing, absence of financial commingling, and lack of sustained cohabitation to defeat termination petitions.