In re Marriage of Raymer, 2022 IL App (1st) 201384-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Raymer, 2022 IL App (1st) 201384-U (1st Dist. June 30, 2022) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Beatrix Raymer; Respondent-Appellant: Ronney Raymer.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the 2013 default divorce judgment was void for lack of notice/ fraud.
2. Whether maintenance should be terminated (rehabilitative purpose met).
3. Whether maintenance should be terminated for statutory cohabitation.
4. Proper retroactive date for a maintenance modification.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It (1) declined to reach the question of whether the 2013 default judgment was void (lack of appellate jurisdiction to decide that collateral attack), (2) affirmed denial of termination of maintenance, (3) affirmed the trial court’s reduction of maintenance from $1,500 to $345/month under the guideline, and (4) affirmed that the modification’s retroactivity ran to July 1, 2019 (the date the obligor filed for modification), not earlier.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Jurisdiction/Default judgment: The court observed it lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of the 2013 default judgment on the record presented; the trial court had previously denied the motion to vacate and the appellant did not timely preserve grounds to nullify the default on appeal. Entry of default followed service and a prove‑up; relief from default requires timely and appropriate challenge (e.g., lack of notice or fraud), which was not successfully established.
- Maintenance modification: The trial court properly applied the statutory maintenance guideline and found a substantial change in the payee’s financial circumstances (increased earnings) warranting reduction. The court’s factual findings (crediting testimony that the parties lived together and shared finances until late 2016) supported limiting retroactivity and prevented imposition of arrearage for the period the parties kept a marital standard.
- Cohabitation/termination: The obligor failed to prove that the payee was in a conjugal cohabiting relationship sufficient to terminate maintenance; mere shared travel, dinners, and financial assistance were insufficient without evidence of a conjugal relationship.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
- Timely and expressly raise and preserve challenges to default judgments; collateral attacks are difficult and appellate courts may lack jurisdiction to decide them.
- When seeking termination for cohabitation, develop concrete evidence of a conjugal, economic interdependence (shared household, joint expenses, sexual/romantic relationship), not just social association.
- File motions to modify maintenance promptly; retroactivity typically runs to the filing date of the modification petition.
- Credibility and contemporaneous financial records (bank accounts, who paid mortgages, insurance coverage) materially affect modification and retroactivity determinations.