In re Marriage of McCormick, 2020 IL App (1st) 191271-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of McCormick, 2020 IL App (1st) 191271‑U (1st Dist. Apr. 2020; modified Nov. 5, 2020).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Cathy McCormick. Respondent‑Appellee: Anthony McCormick. (Rule 23 order — non‑precedential except as allowed.)

2. Key legal issues
- Admissibility and use of an out‑of‑court “affidavit” prepared by the father and signed by the parties’ adult son (Ryan) — impeachment vs. hearsay/substantive use.
- Whether the trial court’s finding that Cathy was cohabitating on a continuing conjugal basis (thus terminating maintenance) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in finding Cathy guilty of witness tampering.
- Appropriateness of attorney‑fee awards and discovery sanctions.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in all respects. The son’s affidavit was admissible for impeachment and any impermissible substantive use was harmless. Objection to the affidavit’s use as an outline for testimony was forfeited and, even if considered, not erroneous. The cohabitation finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court’s witness‑tampering finding was within its authority. Attorney‑fee awards were proper.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Hearsay/impeachment: The son testified at trial and acknowledged the affidavit; the trial court admitted the document as impeachment/supporting evidence of his testimony. The appellate court concluded admission was permissible for impeachment and any alleged improper substantive use did not prejudice Cathy.
- Forfeiture and outline use: Cathy failed to preserve her objection to the affidavit being used as an outline for witness testimony; on the merits, the court found no error in allowing the witness to testify from the document.
- Cohabitation: Reviewing the record for manifest weight, the court relied on corroborating evidence (private investigator surveillance, the son’s testimony that Castagna slept in Cathy’s one‑bedroom, presence at holidays/gift exchanges, business partnership, and travel) to conclude a resident, continuing conjugal relationship existed. Conflicting testimony about caregiving, platonic business trips, and other relationships did not compel reversal.
- Jurisdiction/sanctions: The trial court’s prior finding that Cathy attempted to intimidate Ryan (texts, deposition conduct, contacts) was a permissible exercise of its discovery and contempt/sanction authority; therefore related sanctions and fee awards were within discretion.

5. Practice implications
- Preserve objections to documentary/witness use at trial; failure to do so likely forfeits appellate review.
- When pursuing cohabitation claims, corroborate witness accounts with independent evidence (surveillance, contemporaneous communications, travel records, shared residence/belongings).
- Counsel should strictly avoid ex parte contact, coercion, or aggressive discovery tactics directed at witnesses — courts will police witness intimidation and may impose fees/sanctions.
- Use of signed witness statements/affidavits remains useful for impeachment when the witness testifies; ensure a clean record on scope (impeachment vs. substantive use).