relationship we believe that it was the intention of our legislature to provide for the terminations of an ex pat says obligation to pay future maintenance whenever the spouse receiving the maintenance has and entered into a husband wife relationship with another whether this be by legal or other means for the more than the past ten years deborah flushed and steve wilson have enjoyed and celebrated the ins and outs be it for better or for worse their monogamous and exclusive relationship vacationing together in jamaica and around the country spending time together on holidays spending time and inviting as deborah did every year for christmas since two thousand and fi christmas together with her family at her home easter and hearty holidays with family vacationing together not just in jamaica but going to virgin you're going to milwaukee going to  four corners going around the country they've done that together and they've done that with our with steve's family and with her family they spent the night at each other's homes and doing so one to two times he's home on weekends and they enjoy going out in public they hold hands in public sally love you to each other hug and kiss in public they've spent time with grandchildren they've gone together to  grandsons birth and celebrated his first day of life in the hospital with deborah and steve they've gone to baptisms for her baptism for her grandson they've celebrated the ins and outs the the the the the  different parts of life together as a couple deborah has enjoyed being with steve for the in for the happy parts of life and steve supported her through the sad when deborah's stepmother  drove deborah and her family down to tennessee the next year when her stepfather passed away steve also went with deborah they have celebrated everything together for christmas they've exchanged gifts and steve has given her a diamond necklace gold and silver bracelet when they've gone to grandchildren's birthdays to celebrate those first days together with her grandchildren and his grandchildren the cards from deborah fluster safe from grandma debbie she's also been able to enjoy and rely on his financial support throughout these last more than a decade of being together an explosive relationship steve pays for all of her restaurant meals he pays for all her vacations including the week to jamaica that they took in the hotel stays they've gone to florida and gone tara deborah's daughter's wedding and had pictures as the court would note at a one hundred in the in the appendix and a one hundred one photos of stephen  hospital and steve's also supported her financially when deborah expressed concern about how to pay attorneys steve was one who gave her a thousand dollars to pay those attorneys now she didn't give those directly to her attorney to pay the fees she put those in her bank account steve told her it was a gift but she said it was an alone though she has not yet paid any of those monies back why get married when you can continue to engage in and be part of this wonderful relationship with your paramour's someone you've known since one nine hundred seventy four and started dating the year after you got divorced in two thousand and four and have been able to do all of this with him with your love for more than ten years while still being able to receive seven hundred fifty dollars a month in maintenance from your  why get married when you can enjoy all of this and still receive the funds but that in fact is exactly what the courts have said that should not be done and as just a star even wrote in the parent decision the court noted that this that having this exclusive relationship where then the parties into this in essence are in a defacto husband and wife relationship despite the fact that they have  not been married is exactly what the courts do not support as the hair on court and actually the lambton court both noted the rationale behind terminations maintenance when resident when a resident continuing conjugal cohabitation exi the inequity created when the expos receiving maintenance becomes involved in a husband wife relationship but does not legally solemn nice or formalize it with the result that he or she can continue me fact that's exactly what we see now there are some differences in various cases but notably in the case inherent before district piece of appearing that just a statement authored that relationship in heron was only a two and a half year relationship i've struggled and have not found any relationship where there is a allegation of a continuing cohabit resident continued cohabitation that is indeed as long as the plus as long as wilson's ten year relationship you have the heron relationship in which the the fourth district found that maintenance should be terminated based on the conjugal relationship despite the fact that the parties lived in separate households and continue to live in separate household and that was for two and a half years you also have the in remarriage of susan that's the second court case that was three years the parties were involved in an exclusive though not monogamous relationship the party celebrated christmas grandchildren's birthdays the cards in susan were signed by love mom and don in this case deborah fluster science cards to get to the grandchildren love grandma debbie and steve they've taken trips together the susan case and of course in deborah fluster situation over the last decade there is only one vacation she's taken that wasn't with steve wilson and that was to visit her daughter in virginia every other vacation and indeed in fact additionally work trips that she took have all been with steve wilson you go from niagara falls as a on a work trip down to georgia up to chicago they've gone on vacations to mow walky two they went to deborah's daughter's wedding together and stayed deborah's family in the suite but ins sleeping in their own bedroom in their own bed together for the florida wedding then they went out to four corners they've gone across the country and celebrated life together for more than a decade while still being able to receive over seven hundred fifty dollars and now based on the trial court's decision eleven hundred dollars while still being able devers able to still count on the support from steve wilson the appendix respondent has made a prime a facia showing the debra was engaged in a defacto husband and wife relationship with steve wilson then on on to eleven the court says that however the equitable principles do not beneficiary as you saw as the court would note i think in the washroom place where there was a life insurance beneficiary those and there they don't share a house they have each maintained their own separate house about five miles away similar to what see what the court has seen in the susan case second district case the the courts have also looked at so you so the financial combination or  financial relationship is not strong in bad deborah has not given money to steam at least that that show that what is she has given him the companionship for more than ten years what steve has done is paid for every restaurant meal every vacation every hotel stay she he has he pays for gifts to the grandchildren that he signs from her office steve and debbie and deborah signs cards to her grandchildren and pays for those so you have but you do have the financial reliance that deborah has now had on steve for going out to restaurant meals for enjoyment for paying for the poor the movies that they go up to because i guess when you talk about financial reliance i envision something more practical if you can afford to go out to eat then you just don't get to go out to eat if you can afford to go on a vacation you just don't go on a vacation where here we don't have a situation where he's paying for her groceries or she's relying on him for groceries or she's cooking for his dinners every night or she has access to his home when he's not there is where he has access to her home when she's not there i mean you don't you don't have  those those specific things but you have similar and then you have extended circumstances on the other site so beyond the ten year or decade long relationship that she has driven his car he has driven her car now not something they do all the time and they don't exchange the keys but they've driven each other's cars they stay over at each other's homes now the the court made i think mister deborah's attorney may point out that  they don't spend that much time together steve wilson is over the road for crying over the truck drivers are married to but the they have limited time when you drive around around the country and so when he's home when he's not working he's  on those weekends and then when he's working he's sometimes with her because she has been able to enjoy working simply part time twenty five hours a week nine months a year at as a school cook and yet not work for an additional job beyond cleaning her attorney's office one afternoon a week so that she can then go on the east work trip she's going to niagara falls with him on to georgia and his over the road truck so she's able to spend that extra in additional time with him she he's also done repair work in the house similar to some of the many of the other cases where maintenance was terminated because he'll help with chores he helped repaint her living room he replaced the door and she's talk with him about a problem with the garage and how he can help it say he's mowed her lawn they rely on each other and as husbands and wives do to help out with these others it may not be exactly like every other husband and wife relationship i would say certainly suggest much more of a traditional welcome me and supporting the wife and the wife on the on these occasions but he apparently has the funds and resources to be able to do so and to even give her a thousand dollars when she appears to be worried about how she's going to pay her attorney's the court  cross appeal there is a petition asking for increased additional increase maintenance and in certainly in our appeal we we have jack to the increase in the maintenance and the refusal to terminate or decrease me while the new statute which went into effect on maintenance and setting porter calculation went into effect on january first two thousand and fifteen long after petitions to modify and terminate had been  filed and after evidence had already begun so it doesn't apply the courts can certainly look at that statute for guidance what the guidance should show is that my client jeff lester when faced with the either bei ng fined or being laid off from his work with thirty three years of rights and what is now frontier or retiring he chose to retire he was able to receive benefits including what became one hundred sixty seven thousand dollars plus now she could have chosen she the right to choose to either take eight hundred ten dollars a month as a monthly payment like an annuity payment or to take it as one hundred sixty seven thousand dollars lump sum retirement plan she chose perhaps because she was already getting money from jeff but she didn't need that extra eight hundred ten month a month so she put that into edward jones ira she now has and received that in february of two thousand and fourteen when mr when lesnar left his employment what in just less and after thirty thirty three years of working on the job with only a high school education he didn't retire he knew he still had obligations and so he went to work as a carpenter who went along and making of a little over ten dollars an hour and then in addition to that full time work also doing farming for cash doing farming he receives about three thousand dollars a month now significantly less than he used to receive and compared to deborah's income monthly average income of two thousand seven hundred four dollars a month her net income his income is not significantly higher than hers now jeff has worked hard again rather than retiring he's chosen to continue to work to be able to pay his obligations his wife who suffered through cancer and is now in the mission has all continued to work to be able to pay for the expenses that they as a family ham and what's the result the result is to punish jeff lester for continuing to work and to work hard and not go into retirement but to look for another job so that he can continue his to pay his obligations well deborah flustered the court finding in two thousand and four at the divorce that both parties were in good health relatively young and could work full time deborah has chosen to never return to full time work instead choosing to take the summers off to enjoy time with the grandchildren something i'm sure most people would enjoy doing and when you're still receiving additional maintenance from from your ex husband while you're able to fly across take international and national trip with your your parent mor go across the country and have everything else paying for that something you can certainly afford but it's not right and it's not something that this is the end and the court's decision was against the manifest weight of evidence there is also an objection in the crowd and in the cross appeal with regard to the attorney's fees the courts of the courts have allowed some fee shifting but it is notable to show that it is that the did find that the respondent had proved a a relationship a defacto marriage and so the the courts the trial court's decision to not all attorney's fees beyond the six thousand dollars that the trial court by another judge ordered jeff lester to pay for the petitioners attorney's fees there should be no additional fees it should be should be paid indeed and deborah fl not engaged in a de facto relationship then there would be that would be the other issue but it she has and the crowd where did find the ongoing presidential relationship conjugal relationship as noted deborah and steve talk on the phone every single day they don't hide their relationship to the public they've told each other that the love she loves him he's told her she loves her they go out in public together they don't hide their relationship they hold hands they  they share bedrooms on vacations they've written they've driven in each other's car they've been exclusive and an exclusive dating relationship together and they they have spent that time and social social time together we would ask that the court reverse the trial court's decision there would be an issue in question with regard to back to when i under the great case the maintenance should be terminated certainly back to the data filing but given that they have been gauged in a sexual get relations but everything else has essentially been the same for the last six years we would ask that it be retroactive back to two thousand and five when the parties the fact that these are people who have known each other since high school and they're in their late fifty's now have they had a relationship yes in a dating is a person to join the convent to say it was a law now with respect to this time we spend together it's not like they go every holiday somebody else testimony in it was that he never business or on thanksgiving which spends it with his mother is by the way i should mention that the wilson involved in this case is not this wilson standing in front of you today  them so the contacts are very very intermittent i think there's testimony there one time because aircrafts one time she's done graduates and they made it remade that she was going to stay home and raise their three fifths that's what she did or twenty seven here when she had given a job but  statute that have an effective date but no issue of retroactivity was addressed by the state legislature so what do we have we've got a situation where there's been a number of cases  charitable exemption for hospitals was a grass but i think the court in that case basically said well we think it's unconstitutional and even though there was some discussion about th and whether or not something should be retroactive or not and that particular case we're talking about the exemptions going back to like two thousand and ten two thousand or fifteen and whether a new statute would like that so i it's doesn't create something called maintenance it simply gives us a formula for a wine and i think that's why should take that position and  so i think that in that particular this court here and were asking for were area reversed on that point now the final point is essentially the there because we substantially prevailed in fraud and because in terms of leveling the playing field the only thing that she can do is completely obliterate all of the resources for ret the illinois supreme court case of cotton expresses issues of findings or holdings with regard to attorneys fees and notes that were petitioner by her own misconduct exposed to create proceedings necessary it is inequitable petition for contempt against jeff lester claiming that he had not followed the regulations with regard to notifying her upon his retirement the champagne county circuit court found in favor of jeff l dismissed or discharged the show costs and so no attorneys fees were ordered to be paid course my client had to pay his own attorneys fees for defensive they had discharge petition for contempt and deborah paid her own attorney's fees there have been no motions to withdraw our petitions or suggestions that the two hundred dollars per month that deborah fluster has chosen to pay her attorney even after receiving the thousand dollars from her her  was somehow not appropriate not something that was agreed to or not something that was acceptable to her to attorney paul wilson again she received a thousand dollars and instead of paying her attorney paid has continued to pay two hundred dollars a month in attorney's my client has incurred attorneys fees in similar amounts although not quite as extreme not quite as high as debra plus now in part i would note that debra flustering did not  sign her current petition attorney's fees domestic relations fee agreement until july twenty two two thousand and fourteen that said a ninety four before that she was under her prior divorce which was signed back in two thousand and three or so before that divorce setting forth much lower tourney's fees she was being billed for in two thousand and fourteen despite not having signed a domestic relations fee agreement at a rate of two hundred  fifty dollars an hour minimum is the domestic relations fees degree and says at a minimum of two hours that's five hundred dollars for any hearing no matter how short the hearing that deborah decided to agree to pay those types of attorney's fees was her decision that she would agreed to pay those fees despite having not paid not kind of b agreement agreeing to a century double what she had been paying under the prior fe n was her decision but it was also her decision to enter into what judge bachmann had noted was a as a ten in the instant case the respondent has made a promise facia showing that the petitioner was facto husband and wife relationship with steve wilson they've began dating in two thousand and five and they've been an ex and exclusive monogamous relationship she's been in an exclusive monogamous relationship with him since that date a ten year period that longer than any than the average american marriage and in the alternative to terminate her pregnancy based on the substantial change in circumstances my client's retirement is now working for when to walk in a ten plus dollars an hour and