In re Marriage of Myers, 2024 IL App (2d) 230212-U

Summary — In re Marriage of Myers, 2024 IL App (2d) 230212-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kathleen Myers, No. 2-23-0212 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Order filed Apr. 24, 2024) (Sup. Ct. R. 23(b) — nonprecedential).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Kathleen Myers. Respondent/Appellant: Steven Myers.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether wife’s relationship with a third party (Paul) constituted cohabitation/de facto marriage that would bar or reduce spousal maintenance.
- Whether the trial court properly computed amount of maintenance (and child support) using an annuity as income.
- Whether the trial court’s failure to rule on husband’s June 2021 petition to reduce child support was reversible error.
- Whether funds provided by wife’s parents (characterized as non-gifts) were properly ordered repaid.
- Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to award a non-marital annuity to husband where relief was not pleaded.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed in all respects.
- Trial court’s award of indefinite maintenance to wife upheld; amount and computation (including treating an annuity as income) upheld.
- Failure to rule on husband’s petition was forfeited on appeal.
- Court affirmed order requiring repayment of parental funds to the grandparents (payments were not gifts).
- Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing to transfer the annuity to husband where he sought relief without pleading.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Cohabitation: Appellate court applied the totality-of-circumstances test (Miller/Edson factors — length, time spent together, activities, interrelation of personal affairs, vacations/holidays, economic/functional marriage) and deferred to trial court’s factfinding. Although evidence showed shared nights, vacations, tattoos, joint social life and some financial interchange, the court concluded the relationship lacked the depth, permanence and economic interdependence of a marriage — no manifest weight error.
- Maintenance and income: Treating the annuity as income for maintenance/child support computation was proper; trial court’s discretionary determinations were not an abuse.
- Procedure/forfeiture: Appellant’s argument about the court’s failure to rule on the modification petition was forfeited because he did not secure a timely ruling or preserve the issue.
- Property/pleading: Requests to recharacterize/transfer the annuity as non-marital property must be pleaded; trial court may decline relief not requested in pleadings.

5) Practice implications
- When alleging cohabitation to terminate/reduce maintenance, build a strong record of economic interdependence and permanence (shared living, pooled finances, shared obligations), not just social intimacy or occasional overnight stays.
- Treat annuities and similar payments as potential income streams for support calculations; present valuations and income characterizations at trial.
- Timely obtain rulings on modification petitions — failure to secure a disposition can be forfeited on appeal.
- Clarify and document transfers from third parties (gift vs loan) and be prepared to rebut/establish intent.
- Plead specifically any requested property recharacterization or relief; courts can deny unpleaded relief without abusing discretion.