In re Marriage of Walther, 2018 IL App (3d) 170289

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Walther, 2018 IL App (3d) 170289 (Ill. App. Ct. Apr. 3, 2018). Petitioner-Appellant: Pasha N. Walther. Respondent-Appellee: Leilani E. Walther.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the payor spouse met his burden under 750 ILCS 5/510(c) to show the former spouse was “cohabiting with another person on a resident, continuing conjugal basis,” thereby terminating maintenance.
- Proper application of the “totality of the circumstances” test and the nonexclusive factors used to determine a de facto husband-and-wife relationship.

3. Holding/outcome
The Third District reversed the trial court’s denial of the petition to terminate maintenance and remanded with directions. The appellate court concluded the record supported termination under section 510(c).

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Statutory framework and burden: Termination of future maintenance occurs if the recipient cohabits on a resident, continuing conjugal basis (750 ILCS 5/510(c)); the payor bears the burden to make a substantial showing of a de facto husband-and-wife relationship.
- Totality of circumstances: The court reiterated the nonexclusive factors (length of relationship; amount of time together; nature of activities; interrelation of personal affairs/finances; vacations; holidays) from prior Illinois decisions.
- Application to facts: The appellate majority emphasized multiple indicators of cohabitation and conjugal relationship: sexual/monogamous relationship; regular daily sleeping at the third party’s residence for months; storing and washing clothes there; cooking, buying groceries, sharing meals; the payee’s child moving into the third party’s home; shared vacations/holidays; and public statements/photos referring to a blended “family.” The court rejected the trial court’s reliance on the payee’s separate one‑bedroom lease and asserted that a separate lease does not preclude cohabitation where the totality shows resident, continuing conjugal living. Those facts, in the appellate court’s view, met the payor’s burden and warranted termination. (A dissent disagreed on the weight to be afforded those facts.)

5. Practice implications
- For payors: develop contemporaneous, concrete evidence (photos, texts, testimony about sleeping patterns, shared chores, finances, children residing, vacations/holidays) to satisfy the substantial‑showing burden. Impeachment of contrary testimony is important.
- For recipients: document independent residence and finances (lease, bills, mail, separate accounts) and avoid ambiguous public statements that suggest a familial/household unit.
- Agreement drafting: consider precise cohabitation termination language and definitions to reduce litigation ambiguity.
- Courts will look beyond labels (lease/ownership) to functional living arrangements; short-term separate residence does not automatically defeat a cohabitation claim if the totality indicates resident, continuing conjugal cohabitation.