involved in her in her business she contacted a gentleman by the name of schneider shells a contect a friend of hers but ultimately her and mr schneider was the only people that that got involved in this particular business they openly ended up being involved in two different properties and they rented those properties that really have those properties at the time of trial they were actually ongoing rentals and the money was going into anchors away the problem arose because they didn't do a very good accounting business with regard to this anchors aweigh business money went from one account to another in fact their account alleged by the name of young testified that that was kind of a normal thing for them to have happen but  schneider created this business it was created at her residence on stein kenny gross thank you school in highland illinois they had a morton building up of metal building in the back that they used as their business building and they'd bring clients in there and they'd do st louis called the hall one property while this morning it acquired the the property located on board more and that was in illinois and they continued to work on the property together through two thousand and thirteen relationships with other people during the time periods in which the the timing question why does that matter well because most of the court cases your honor i'm going to i refer to  miller in my brief they all talk about exclusivity of a relationship the idea of having an exclusive relationship is one of those things that the courts have looked through to determine whether or not this is in fact a de facto husband  the court equated a de facto marriage with a marriage the difference between the day fact american of marriage and some fourth by the by the cases that i cited is that commitment factor the commitment that you get with a marriage because the actual marriage itself the license you get so of the situation so i said in this particular case assuming for the moment the evidence here been sufficient that she was engaging in this going sexual relationship with schneider it would have been enough to warrant terminating maintenance the terminations or maintenance was trumped by the fact that she was also sleeping around with lots of other kids there were a whole bunch of other factors also your are well of the world now that's my question was would the fact that she was sleeping around with a bunch of other guys trump the fact that she had this ongoing sexual relationship with someone that factor alone your are probably would not however that factor is one of the many factors you have to look is termination and had ongoing sexual relationships with multiple multiple partners i'm not aware your honor of a case in that particular situation so we'd be the first social that somehow was a mitigating factor when it comes to there's a natural argument well i believe that's what the that's what the supreme court has said he says is that your argument just shrug ok yes it is in fact the court the lower court frog court in this particular case said that the seminal case on this on this issue was that here in case it looked to the six factors that were in the in that particular hearing case to determine whether or not it should it should terminate maintenance in this particular case those look at her and please itself those factors don't match up with the factors in this particular case in the here in case the party spent most holidays together in our case there was a thanksgiving day gathering that my client had where she had invited a number of people he was one of the people that got invite in addition to that there was one christmas where he had worked at the house that night spent the night there and left the next morning when he got a ride from his mother and she had christmas with her family at that point that there was no holiday special together they talk about gifts being bought back and or there's no gifts being bought back and forth in fact mr schneider never bought gifts for my client my my client moved ms i was born says that one particular point in time before this issue came up before the the alleged relationship started she had been invited invited to a birthday party of his along with a group of other people and they all brought small gifts the only other give the she got was a g that she bought in a business relationship and she bought two walls two sixteen dollar wallets i believe they were maybe they were sixteen dollars total and she gave one wallet to another business appoint the purse and one wallet to this to this particular city other than that there's no gifts no personal gifts of any nature also with regard to the hair in case they talked about the number of the the numerous vacations that the parties took together in our case there is one and this vacation arose because my client's daughter's a special needs child she was allowed on a cruise through the make a wish foundation she had originally asked she she was able to have her friend go with her and she was allowed to bring two other people she had asked her mother and her him to go whe sometimes can be taken to an illogical extreme my client didn't fill out any of the bankruptcy schedules she didn't thought any of the paperwork that went on his paycheck stubs she didn't fill out any work that went into his divorce she filled out roll her own paperwork and so she never that he did and the question i think the important question for this court at this point in time is when he testified at trial he opened himself up for a perjury charge on the bankruptcy case and he said even though i'm hoping myself up for that charge i'm going to testify fruitfully and he said we were we were living together in fact one of the issues that came up was so that the a less credibility of his bankruptcy attorney was bankruptcy attorney admitted on cross examination  that question he said you know my fiance she just the growth she's a girlfriend just like the other witnesses that testified for us said was she girlfriend of theirs as well again i believe this gets back to the the supreme court's decisions with of mr montgomery a paid the household expenses for miss seventy while in our case only expense that ever got paid by mr schneider was a water and they test both testified that that was his contribution to the business expenses because the business was located on the same property he didn't pay any chillies of her and she didn't take a cable bill she didn't pay any rent payments he didn't pay any of those other things off how about what she did for him didn't have a check took the testimony was it didn't have a his checkbook with him or she gave him a check to pay the union dues the next day i got paid back that would be him going back to credibility though but was anybody able to demonstrate that was they had they have separate business also but with regard to i think it's important to look to the issues which which the supreme court has talked about in bates that the bates court went on to say they talked about something called an intimate dating relationship and they said an intimate dating relationship is not a this does not create a de facto marriage that leads us to the miller case which kind of outlined and went through and delineated all of the factors that were set forth in the heretics ultimately what the miller court said was that her case is a place to start but just having something in one of those places as was happy as happened for what we now know or in the miller case doesn't mean you happy a continuing mutual committed everything we've gotten this case indicated that while there was commitment to this business there was no commitment to exclusive it that they clearly stated that throughout this entire time that they were running this business he knew she was dating other people he knew she was dating other people they didn't go to the movies is as the nose did they didn't have a they didn't buy a membership to a golf course as it has happened in the millers and still the court held that it didn't have that element of that she had to look to in order to trump any maintenance so what the court was saying was if you don't have a commitment that creates a marriage like relationship you don't have a de facto marriage in the case at hand we don't have anything that even comes close to even an intimate dating relationship and in our particular case what happened was the parties is as bizarre supported done with other people and mr schneider done with other people and i would suspect many other people have done with other people as they've dated several different individuals and they're dating a lot of different individuals and while you're dating sometimes you have sexual relations not of it it doesn't exclusivity in order to create that marital relationship in our case your honor what the court had or what the parties have is they had a business relationship and that business relationship required by my client to come up with the finances for the most part on it back or about to be paid back and they're all listed in the in the business in the business information all of the business accounts that's can akin to what the miller court said when the lower court said that even in business relationship parties coming a lot of fun it happens all the time but it doesn't create a marital relationship it doesn't create a de facto marriage in order to create that de facto marriage you need something more than that i it can't just be that you went on that you that you were the same place for a vacation or that you went out to dinner with somebody or you went to movies or somebody none of which was testified to our particular case no movies no dates no going out to other place as young testified that this kind of a common thing for these people to get for people to get involved in when they have a business relationship they tend to do things kind of on the whim on the prayer and hope like heck it works itself out of the end the judge indicated that he was surprised that they finally figured out who made what contribution shortly before trial ms young said that's not a very unusual thing when parties are trying to get a business up and running there were a number of things that were done that that were done kind of have hazard late they made bad investments that one was to buy this he managed shuras which was supposed to be able to insure people's lives in the in the business and yet at the same time they were fulfilled to use that to reinvest the monies into something else and all it did was lose money eventually my  testimony was it didn't turn out to be the great course that they thought it was going to be with all the cd discs but it was something that they have seen and have been advertised to him so they went ahead and took this course i will disagree with the court of the court says these parties didn't make real good investments of their time their energy their monies but does that create a de facto marital relationship i don't think so i believe as the supreme court has said has never said you gotta look to those elements of do they did they want to make it permanent was there something that they did that said i'm making this problem i'm holding this out from even in the miller case where the parties had a family christmas picture taken they posted on facebook cord hell that's not enough to say we now have a family permanent relationship we don't have anything like that but we've got just two people get involved in a business relationship and also having a sexual relationship and when the business relationships get situation there's a couple areas that that differ from the bates case that counts relies on one of them is these people live together now this judge heard all the explanations and looked at all of the documentary evidence that they lived together and i've out go through the bankruptcy petition wasn't perves but he says i don't live here from august of two thousand and eleven to april of two thousand and thirteen he goes to the creditors meaning he's examined by the trustee says it again says that i paid for expenses of  tanya i live in her house we shared expenses she paid expenses for me he gets examined by his ex wife's divorce attorney it's again then he says these schedules are wrong so the trustee says well sir you're under oath you understand this is perjury you understand that you have to be actually one hundred percent correct you go back to your divorce attorney he goes back not only does he fill out an amended one that says he is living with her again he fills out an affidavit a separate affidavit were living together were shared expenses and were literally the same home those are just the bankruptcies it's also important to know that miss oz warm went with him the first time he went through the divorce attorney mr johnson and she fell the hour he fell out exhibit forty six that says he's living with her no questions no you know i'm not living here or maybe i'm not living here whatever tax returns which she helps him fill up they go to an accountant that she picks up he her address as his address this fall what property that he buys and he testifies it's not investment property at the bankruptcy he lists that as the address where he's living for the residence of the grantee and her address the tax bill comes to her address his paychecks his w to his credit card his retirement accounts and what's really interesting is when the judge time he started living with tanya then his bank records go to her address and they stay at her address until he moves out to haul wood and then they move the home same thing with his credit card all of this the judge takes into account when he makes the determination you two were living together and what brought this is i think even closer to append to the trial fortnight a no no you have said on the trial for bench you got to it's not even in his name and if you were him and he couldn't answer basic questions the least says you got to pay two hundred dollars plus utilities he filed an affidavi contemporaneous to the same time with the divorce court saying he's paying six hundred dollars a month rent on top of that he couldn't explain how come there's no checks there's no receipts there's no evidence he's even paying this so then he comes up with this this new idea that oh i'm working off part of the room but he couldn't answer my simple questions why are you working off right you don't home you don't know excuse me i couldn't even answer i mean you know the judge did a great job cutting through finding out what truly was happening the other thing that i think that the counsel that ignores is that in the documentation given to the account and for the anchors away and in there in hers for two thousand and twelve international documentation she gave there's a whole section of payments for mr oz and there are her hand written notes which say not shareholder contributions for groceries for law expenses these people were living as husband and wife just the things they commingle the court couldn't ignore that in fact the evidence is so overwhelming in this case i mean this guy gets busted hauled into jail who bails him out she needs medicine she gives him his a t m card to go down take money out of the account and get her medicine she bought him a christmas present she bought him a birthday present big present givers not a big big haitian people know there's mr snyder commingling of funds is so strong in this case they operate out of one bank account he has his own but they put money back and exhibits five hundred here five fifty there eight hundred there she supposedly bought his truck right before the bankruptcy for five hundred bucks he kept grip he drove it continuously it was his car his truck he had his own p c although he didn't have a proper sauces but he still drove it he went where we wanted to go she paid for the insurer she paid for the repair and it was supposedly her truck another thing that's a key to this quarter i think the trial court saw through is he claimed in his bankruptcy he owed her sixty three hundred out she claimed oh yes he owes me sixty three hundred dollars then she also claimed that was my investment in halward property that's in his name then he borrows money it on  try and make another investment supposedly in both of their behalf when that when that falls through the money comes back and he puts the money into her account he sells her life insurance policy the beneficiaries were mr snyder and her children he managed shuras comes back to the company he managed services to ensure an operation a successful company this company was never successful this company would never warrant back end of insurance expense even if it's a dumb business decision is what i'm sure mr grayson is going to tell you but it is not key man insurance and her insurance policy his insurance policy went to her when they pasted in word the money go back into the comingled phone i would dare say it would cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars to try and figure out who's monies who in her bank account because they're both dumping money in it's commingle just like a husband and wife i got money today you pay for dinner you know that kind of thing they go out so in total these people are living as husband and wife it's the it is the most obvious case of cohabitation and they continuing  facto husband wife relationship but i run across that a long time usually i don't you know usually i don't have this much evidence usually you have a little bit but they have a sexual relationship they have a personal relationship they assist each other when someone needs something they loan money to the other person she paid for his first installment payment on his chapter thirteen bankruptcy she paid his union dues and i would ask counsel to point out the record where that never got paid back because it wasn't in her financial records she paid for his divorce attorney she paid for his ex wife's  all of these are husband and wife type of act the real estate program that they went to came out of her money over sixty eight hundred dollars the i said the life insurance halward was in his name alone and she spent thousands of dollars from the account into the hallway same with dark more thousands of dollars into dark more they shared in the rental income they both share in the hall when anchors away wasn't even listed on anything in his bankruptcy in fact he said i don't have any of this this is all my business before my and then he comes to this court and he says oh judge you have to believe me that i wasn't living with her i wasn't commingling i wasn't acting in this husband wife relationship because i lied at the bankruptcy what kind of credibility does he have and when you look at the documents what kind of credibility that she had just the sorriest spent a lot of time going through and analyzing the the question before you is this is decision against the manifest weight of the air and i would submit to you his decision is in is totally supported by the manifest weight of the evidence and if first of all with regard to the consul's last point the courts say that that is further evidence of the de facto relationship was that they admitted to a longstanding such a relationship there he's looking at the sexual relationship as the information that we've received that says they loan money back and forth testimony is exactly the opposite my client says he never loaned me a dime not a da ever again gifts ever or never celebrate holidays with me took the one vacation with me the other the other item they talked about was her son had an issue that it is something a fish to his house in north carolina she has to people come and help work and that's that yet there's no trips there's no vacations there's no nothing with regard to the life insurance they met at a real estate conference this individual who said you can invest in this and you can use this to help fund other other businesses that last week in fact tonya lost a lot of money as a result but with regard to his obligation with respect to hall would he have a sixty three hundred dollar obligation to the business that's a loan and important times we had a witness who testified i spent a large period of time there two or three days a week and i only saw it for six months and only saw him a couple of times and he never spent the money how is that a longstanding they fact a husband wife relationship when he's not spending the night there and she doesn't see him but a couple of times in two or three months this is not a situation where the parties have said we're going to make this permanent and the thing i would like to close with for the court was is this a situation where time was for him said i want to make this a permanent relationship i'm going to hold this out is permanent we're going to make a mutual commitment to each other we've got  longevity and prominence they don't have that in this particular case they've got less here than they have in many of the cases where the courts have rightfully it's not a husband wife relationship i don't even believe this is an intimate dating relationship as