In re Marriage of Price, 2022 IL App (5th) 220079-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Price, No. 5-22-0079, 2022 IL App (5th) 220079-U (Oct. 18, 2022).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Patricia Price (n/k/a Patricia Box). Respondent-Appellant: Paul Price.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether Paul was entitled to reimbursement of maintenance payments after proving that Patricia cohabited on a “resident, continuing conjugal basis” with another person during the maintenance period (750 ILCS 5/510(c)).
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion or entered a ruling contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence in denying Paul’s reimbursement motion and granting Patricia’s motion to dismiss.
- Procedural/timing issues referenced by the parties: interplay with §510(a) (modification/prospective effect) and dismissal under 735 ILCS 5/2‑619(a)(5).

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court’s denial of Paul’s motion for reimbursement and grant of Patricia’s motion to dismiss were affirmed. The court found Paul failed to produce sufficient factual or legal support for reimbursement and did not show the trial court abused its discretion or committed manifest-weight error.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory framework: §510(c) terminates future maintenance if the recipient cohabits on a resident, continuing conjugal basis; the payor bears the burden to prove cohabitation and the date it began (Snow and related authority).
- The trial court credited testimony and exhibits and found Paul’s assertions were largely speculative, lacking direct proof that cohabitation with Gary Box occurred during the 36‑month maintenance period. Key evidentiary defects: missing witnesses (no subpoenas), investigator absent, largely circumstantial invoices and out‑of‑state charges that had alternative explanations (business trips, family visits).
- The court also relied on the marital settlement agreement (paragraph (O)) which limited the parties’ rights to those set out in the MSA; there was no legal or factual basis to disturb the agreement years later.
- The appellate court emphasized that it may affirm on any record-ground; here, deficiency of evidence and legal support justified the rulings.

5. Practice implications (brief)
- Payors seeking reimbursement must develop and present concrete, chronological proof of cohabitation and its start date; circumstantial evidence without corroboration risks denial.
- Preserve issues at dissolution: obtain discovery, subpoena witnesses, and litigate cohabitation allegations contemporaneously — delay undermines proof and credibility.
- Draft MSAs with clear cohabitation, termination, and recapture/reimbursement clauses; consider clauses addressing future claims and evidentiary burdens.
- Be diligent with subpoenas and investigator availability for hearing dates; courts may refuse continuances after long delays.