In re Marriage of Saunders, 2024 IL App (3d) 230151

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Saunders, 2024 IL App (3d) 230151 (3d Dist. Jan. 9, 2024).
- Devon E. Saunders (petitioner-appellant) v. Christopher W. Saunders (respondent-appellee).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether respondent met his burden to terminate statutory/contractual maintenance by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the maintenance recipient (Devon) was cohabiting in a “resident, continuing conjugal” relationship that amounted to a de facto husband-and-wife relationship (as opposed to an intimate dating relationship).
- Whether the trial court’s finding of a de facto marriage was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3. Holding / outcome
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s termination of maintenance. It held the trial court’s finding that Devon and her boyfriend were in a de facto marriage (so as to terminate maintenance retroactive to the petition filing date) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Governing law: maintenance may terminate where the recipient “cohabits with an unrelated person on a continuing conjugal basis” (750 ILCS 5/510(c)); the petitioner must show a de facto husband-and-wife relationship (Herrin factors). Appellate review is for manifest weight.
- The court applied the six-factor Miller/Herrin totality-of-the-circumstances test (length of relationship; time spent together; nature of activities; interrelation of personal affairs/finances; vacations together; holidays together) and emphasized that facts supporting those factors must have sufficient “gravitas” to distinguish an intimate dating relationship from a de facto marriage.
- Material facts the appellate court found insufficient to support a de facto marriage: the parties maintained separate residences; the boyfriend never resided at Devon’s home (no keys, no drawer, no commingled finances, no shared bills or beneficiaries); limited family integration (did not meet close relatives, limited meetings with Devon’s children/friends); limited shared domestic responsibilities; sporadic overnight stays (never more than four consecutive days); social-media posts and some vacations/restaurant outings were insufficient in depth to establish de facto marriage. The private investigator’s surveillance was inconclusive.
- Because the opposite conclusion (dating relationship, not de facto marriage) was clearly supported by the evidence, the trial court’s finding was reversed.

5. Practice implications (practical takeaways for attorneys)
- For petitioners seeking termination: develop concrete evidence of residency and intermingling — leases/utility bills, keys, mail, shared bank/credit accounts, beneficiary changes, joint purchases, consistent overnight residency, testimony from family/friends about integration, household chores, shared insurance or bills. Surveillance and social media alone are often insufficient.
- For respondents defending maintenance: stress separation of finances, lack of keys/beneficiary designations, limited family integration, absence of consistent co-residence or domestic interdependence. Produce contemporaneous documentary evidence and third‑party witnesses.
- Preserve appellate issues (directed‑verdict motions may be waived if party later presents evidence). Challenge retroactive termination where evidentiary support for “resident, continuing conjugal” status is weak.