2019 IL App (3d) 180208

Opinion filed April 29, 2019 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2019 

In re MARRIAGE OF AMY B. )

CHURCHILL, ) 

 ) 

 Petitioner-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

and ) 

 ) 

JOHN CHURCHILL, ) 

 ) 

 Respondent-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 10th Judicial Circuit, 

Tazewell County, Illinois

Appeal No. 3-18-0208 

Circuit No. 16-D-397 

Honorable 

Timothy J. Cusack 

Judge, Presiding 

______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

Justices Carter and McDade concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 OPINION

¶ 1 Respondent John Churchill filed a petition to terminate maintenance he was obligated to 

pay to his former spouse, petitioner Amy Churchill, alleging that she was cohabitating with 

another man. The trial court denied John’s petition. He appealed the ruling as well as the trial 

court’s award of permanent maintenance to Amy. We affirm.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 Petitioner Amy Churchill and respondent John Churchill were married on March 27, 

1999, and had two children, born September 7, 1999, and October 18, 2002. Amy filed a petition 
2 

for dissolution of the marriage and for an order of protection on September 27, 2016. The trial 

court granted Amy temporary relief in February 2017, awarding her temporary monthly child 

support of $6040 and maintenance of $5000 and entering an order of protection. The court 

appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent the children. 

¶ 4 John filed a petition to terminate temporary maintenance in October 2017, alleging Amy 

was cohabitating with her boyfriend, Jared Fogle. In December 2017, a trial took place on John’s 

petition to terminate maintenance at which the following witnesses and evidence were presented. 

Amy testified she had been a homemaker throughout the marriage because John wanted her to 

stay at home. She had a part-time temporary job for several years at which she earned $8.59 per 

hour. She quit the job because she and John were building a house. At the time of trial, she had 

not worked for four years. She had a high school diploma and two years post-high school classes. 

She met her boyfriend Jared in November 2016. She had planned to see him with a group of 

friends on New Year’s Eve 2016 but cancelled because of illness. Jared visited her when she was 

hospitalized in January 2017. They went on their first date on Valentine’s Day 2017, and had 

engaged in sexual intercourse since February 2017. Amy estimated Jared spent the night at her 

house approximately seven times between February and April 2017, with the longest period 

being Friday through Sunday. Jared kept a sweatshirt and a pair of slides at the marital house on 

Tara Trace and slides at her rental place on North Morton Avenue. He helped move her outdoor 

furniture from the house on Tara Trace to the North Morton Avenue house but she hired movers

for the majority of her items.

¶ 5 Amy spent a lot of time with Jared, including going to the movies once and bowling 

several times with her children. She and Jared also went to the casino a few times. Jared helped 

her son with his Spanish homework because Jared spoke the language. Jared also came to her 
3 

sons’ sporting events. He used the grill at her house at her request on two occasions and took out 

the trash twice. He mowed the lawn and edged once when there was a showing scheduled. Jared 

washed his clothes at her house from time to time and put up a shelf for her son but he did not 

assist her with household chores. She accepted packages for him delivered to her house, 

including several addressed to Amy Fogle. Amy explained that Jared used Amy Fogle as a code 

so she would know to wait to open the package until he was with her. She vacationed to 

Las Vegas with Jared to celebrate his birthday. She paid her share of the trip. They also traveled 

to Macomb for family gatherings. She bought Jared a ring when his grandfather died but he was 

uncomfortable with it because of its symbolism. She and Jared had not discussed marriage and 

she stated that Jared may not be in her life forever. Amy acknowledged Jared would likely move 

back to Texas and their relationship would end. She was not interested in marrying again.

¶ 6 Jared testified that he co-owned and operated a hail damage repair business with his 

brother. The work required him to move from place to place. He worked in Morton from 

November 2016 to April 2017. Jared moved the business to Canton in April 2017, staying there 

until June 2017, when he moved the business to Iowa. In October 2017, he moved the business to 

Missouri. His permanent home address was in Texas. His time in Morton was always meant to 

be temporary. While working in Morton, Jared set up an office and converted a room there into 

living quarters. Amy would visit him there for lunch on occasion. Although he spent a few nights 

at Amy’s house, he stayed primarily at his converted living space. He parked his truck in the 

garage at the Tara Trace house three or four times when the weather was bad. After Amy moved 

to North Morton Avenue, he stayed there two or three nights each month. He never had a key to 

either residence. He did not keep a toothbrush at Amy’s house. He had items delivered to Amy’s 

house because he did not want them left unattended at the business. 
4 

¶ 7 John testified as to Amy’s spending habits during the marriage and after their separation 

and divorce. It was his understanding from a phone call he overheard between one of his sons 

and Amy that she was dating Jared at Christmas time 2016.

¶ 8 The GAL testified that the children told her Jared did not live with them but spent four 

days at their house approximately every other weekend. Jared was treated as a guest. One son 

found the idea of his mother marrying Jared humorous and said his relationship with his 

girlfriend was more serious than Amy and Jared’s relationship. He called the ring Jared gave 

Amy a mother’s ring and not a promise ring. Both children thought John was trying to trap Amy. 

¶ 9 A sales associate from Rogers and Holland testified that Jared and Amy were authorized 

users on each other’s account, which was done for convenience. Jared used Amy’s address for a 

ring he bought her. The ring was described as a double-heart alexandrite ring with birthstones. 

Amy bought Jared a ring that was a wedding band. The men’s wedding rings were less flashy 

than the regular men’s rings, which included diamonds and other decorations on them. 

¶ 10 A private investigator hired by John testified that he began investigating Amy in 

February 2017 to determine John’s claims of cohabitation. He conducted surveillance of Amy’s 

house and Jared’s business. He could not say that Jared ever spent the night at Amy’s house. 

After the petition to terminate was filed, Amy’s Facebook page was made private and he could 

no longer access it. He had used Facebook to find a lot of pictures documenting her relationship 

with Jared, which were used as exhibits at trial. His investigation continued until October 2017. 

¶ 11 An employee of John who passed the marital house on her way to work testified that she 

had seen a black truck at the house between 7:30 a.m. and 8 a.m. in October 2016 but could not 

identify it as Jared’s truck.
5 

¶ 12 Amy’s father testified that he spent time at Amy’s house in the fall of 2016 and 

occasionally spent the night. He drove a black Yukon. 

¶ 13 Following the trial, the court entered a bifurcated judgment of dissolution on December 

14, 2017. The court entered an order incorporating the parties’ marital settlement agreement in 

January 2018, which resolved all issues except maintenance, child support and uncovered 

medical expenses. In April 2018, the trial court entered an order denying John’s petition to 

terminate maintenance. In doing so, the court made specific findings regarding the factors 

concerning cohabitation that indicated Amy and Jared were not in a resident, continuing conjugal 

relationship. The trial court also made specific findings regarding the statutory maintenance 

factors and awarded Amy permanent maintenance in the amount of $10,000 per month. John 

appealed.

¶ 14 ANALYSIS

¶ 15 John presents two issues on appeal: whether the trial court erred in denying his petition to 

terminate maintenance and in awarding permanent maintenance.

¶ 16 We start with John’s challenge to the trial court’s denial of his petition to terminate 

maintenance. John argues that he established that Amy was cohabitating with Jared, necessitating 

the termination of maintenance, and that the trial court should have granted his petition. 

¶ 17 A former spouse’s obligation to pay maintenance will terminate when the former spouse 

“cohabits with another person on a resident, continuing conjugal basis.” 750 ILCS 5/510(c) 

(West 2016). The court considers the following nonexhaustive factors to determine whether a 

party is engaged in a de facto marriage: (1) the length of the relationship, (2) the amount of time 

the former spouse and new partner spend together, (3) the nature of the activities in which they 

participate, (4) the interrelation of their personal affairs, and whether they (5) vacation and
6 

(6) spend holidays together. In re Marriage of Herrin, 262 Ill. App. 3d 573, 577 (1994). Other 

factors include the effect the relationship has on the recipient former spouse’s financial need for 

maintenance and the intended permanence or mutual commitment to the relationship. In re 

Marriage of Bramson, 83 Ill. App. 3d 657, 663 (1980); In re Marriage of Miller, 2015 IL App 

(2d) 140530, ¶ 48. As opposed to an intimate dating relationship, a de facto marriage involves a 

deeper commitment, permanence and partnership. Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 51. The 

spouse seeking termination of maintenance bears the burden of establishing a de facto marriage 

relationship. In re Marriage of Thornton, 373 Ill. App. 3d 200, 208 (2007). A reviewing court 

will not reverse a trial court’s finding that a de facto marriage exists unless the finding is against 

the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Marriage of Toole, 273 Ill. App. 3d 607, 611-12 

(1995). We will not reverse an order terminating maintenance unless it was an abuse of 

discretion. In re Marriage of Bernay, 2017 IL App (2d) 160583, ¶ 13. 

¶ 18 The trial court found that (1) Amy and Jared had been in a relationship between 8 and 12 

months; they met after Jared moved to the area in November 2016, and began dating in February 

2017; (2) John’s private investigator could not find definitive evidence that Jared stayed at 

Amy’s house for a 37-week period from February 2017 to November 2017, although Amy 

admitted Jared stayed occasionally during that period; Jared kept separate living quarters with his 

brother at their commercial business; Jared did not change his address to Amy’s house or move 

in any furniture or personal belongings; (3) Amy and Jared spent significant time together as 

typical of a new relationship; (4) the relationship was sexual; (5) Jared did not share in Amy’s 

household chores, although he assisted her on a couple of occasions; (6) Amy and Jared did not 

have any joint accounts or commingle their finances; (7) they did not own any joint property;

(8) they each paid their own expenses; (9) neither provided for each other in their wills or estate 
7 

planning; (10) Amy and Jared vacationed and spent holidays together, which was reflective of 

the initial bloom of the relationship but did not translate into a de facto marriage; (11) Jared 

exchanged gifts with Amy and her sons, which was normal dating behavior. The court also 

rejected John’s claims that the rings Amy and Jared bought each other were engagement rings, 

finding the characterization of the rings was disputed and there was no other evidence of an 

engagement; and (12) Amy acknowledged the parties discussed marriage, said she was not 

interested in remarrying and told Jared the same. He said they talked about moving to Texas but 

did not pursue the plan. 

¶ 19 The findings made by the trial court establish that Amy and Jared were involved in an 

intimate dating relationship and that it lacked the permanence of a de facto marriage. Nothing 

John argues changes that result. John’s reliance on In re Marriage of Walther, 2018 IL App (3d) 

170289, In re Marriage of Snow, 322 Ill. App. 3d 953 (2001), and In re Marriage of Sappington, 

106 Ill. 2d 456 (1985), is misplaced. In those cases, there was evidence the ex-spouse and the 

new partner lived together. In Snow, this court found termination of maintenance was appropriate 

where the ex-spouse’s boyfriend moved into her house and lived there for a year and a half. 

Snow, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 955. In Sappington, the ex-spouse and her boyfriend lived together in 

the marital home for more than two years. Sappington, 106 Ill. 2d at 459-60. 

¶ 20 In Walther, this court determined the former wife was cohabitating on a resident, 

continuing conjugal basis and granted the former husband’s petition to terminate maintenance. 

Walther, 2018 IL App (3d) 170289, ¶ 33. The Walther facts established that the former wife slept 

at her boyfriend’s house every night for nearly a year. Id. ¶ 27. The former wife’s daughter also 

lived at the boyfriend’s house, sharing a room with his daughter. Id. ¶ 30. The former wife stored 

her clothes at the boyfriend’s house, bought groceries and cooked for her boyfriend’s family, 
8 

traveled with her boyfriend and referred to a picture of her, him, and each of their daughters as a 

family. Id. ¶ 24. The former wife maintained a one-bedroom apartment in her own name, which 

was sparsely furnished. Id. ¶ 7. She used the apartment address as her official address, with her 

bank statements and utility bills mailed there. Id. ¶ 18. She also used the address for her driver’s 

license, vehicle registration, and her daughter’s school registration. Id. 

¶ 21 The circumstances in Walther differ substantially from the instant case. Amy and Jared 

met when he was in the area working and began dating. In contrast, in Walther, the former wife 

had reconnected with a childhood friend after she and her husband separated and she eventually 

moved back to her hometown, where her friend still lived. Id. ¶¶ 5-7. Although she rented an 

apartment, the former wife admitted she spent every night at her friend’s house. Id. ¶ 27. Here, 

there was no evidence Jared lived with Amy. He did not store clothes at Amy’s house other than 

a sweatshirt and pair of shoes and did not move in any of his personal belongings. John’s 

investigator was not able to discover that Jared spent the night at Amy’s house at all during a 

seven-month period of surveillance, although Jared and Amy acknowledged that he spent some 

nights at her house, estimating several per month. Amy’s sons told the GAL that Jared did not 

live with them but often spent every other weekend there. At most, Jared stayed with Amy for a 

long weekend. The nature of Jared’s business was such that he moved around to where the work 

was located. After he met Amy and worked in the Morton area, he moved the business to 

Canton, then to Missouri. Jared lived with his brother at their business locations while in Illinois. 

He maintained his permanent home in Texas. 

¶ 22 Amy and Jared did not share finances or commingle the daily aspects of their lives. Jared 

participated in some activities with Amy’s children but did not assume a role as a father. Unlike 

the wife in Walther, he did not participate in the day-to-day living activities of Amy’s household. 
9 

Jared did not cook, clean or buy groceries for Amy and her children and Amy did not do Jared’s 

laundry, buy his groceries or prepare his meals. See id. ¶ 29. He did not have a key or unfettered 

access to either of Amy’s houses. See id. Jared and Amy spent significant amounts of time 

together at the beginning of their relationship as was typical but neither of them anticipated a 

future together or indicated the relationship was permanent. Moreover, as Jared moved out of the 

area for work, it followed that their day-to-day involvement decreased. Amy’s son considered his 

high school relationship with his girlfriend more serious than his mother and Jared’s relationship. 

¶ 23 Based on the evidence presented, John failed to establish that Amy was engaged in a 

resident, continuing conjugal relationship with Jared. His involvement in Amy’s life and with her 

children reflected an intimate dating relationship but did not rise to the level of a de facto

marriage. We find the trial court did not err when it denied John’s petition to terminate 

maintenance. 

¶ 24 The second issue is whether the trial court erred when it made the maintenance award 

permanent. John does not challenge that Amy was entitled to maintenance but argues it should be 

limited to 14 years as set forth in the maintenance guidelines and the award as permanent was 

not warranted. John filed his petition to terminate maintenance based on the award of temporary 

maintenance prior to the court’s determination of maintenance in the judgment of dissolution. 

¶ 25 The guidelines provide that for parties with a combined income of less than $500,000, the 

duration of maintenance is to be determined according to a formula based on the length of the 

marriage. 750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2017). For maintenance that does not fall 

under the guidelines, the court must consider the statutory factors. 750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)(2) (West 

Supp. 2017). These factors include (1) the parties’ income and property; (2) their needs; (3) each 

party’s realistic earning potential, both current and future; (4) impairment to the earning potential
10 

of the party seeking maintenance as a result of staying home to raise the children or run the 

household; (5) any impairment to the earning potential of the spouse from whom maintenance is 

sought; (6) the amount of time necessary for the recipient spouse to acquire appropriate training 

and education to support herself and whether she can support herself; (7) the parties’ standard of 

living established in the marriage; (8) the marriage’s duration; (9) “the age, health, station,

occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, 

and the needs of each of the parties”; (10) all sources of income; (11) tax consequences from the 

property division on the parties’ economic circumstances; (12) contribution by the spouse 

seeking maintenance to the other spouse’s education, training, career or career potential, or 

license; (13) any valid agreement of the parties; and (14) any other factor found to be just and 

equitable. Id. § 504(a)(1)-(14). 

¶ 26 Permanent maintenance is appropriate where the spouse receiving it is not employable at 

a level to allow her to live at the standard of living established during the marriage or is not 

employable at all. In re Marriage of Harms & Parker, 2018 IL App (5th) 160472, ¶ 45. 

Permanent maintenance may be warranted in a lengthy marriage where the recipient spouse 

devoted his or her time to raise the children. In re Marriage of Culp, 341 Ill. App. 3d 390, 398 

(2003). This court reviews a trial court’s decision to award permanent maintenance for an abuse 

of discretion. In re Marriage of Dunseth, 260 Ill. App. 3d 816, 833 (1994).

¶ 27 The statutory maintenance guidelines do not apply here where John’s income was greater 

than $500,000 per year. The court set forth the statutory factors justifying maintenance, which 

reflected the need for the award to be permanent. At the time of the dissolution, Amy was 49 

years old, with a high school diploma and some college coursework. She had not worked outside 

the home throughout the marriage except for a 10-hour per week, hourly-wage position that she 
11 

held for several years. In contrast, during the marriage “John cultivated his business.” He 

enjoyed a brighter financial future, with past earnings over $500,000 annually from a business he 

owned and grew with Amy’s assistance at home. The court noted the parties’ “lavish standard of 

living” and personal property in excess of $1.4 million. The marriage was just over 17 years

when Amy filed for dissolution. The parties’ property division was equal with Amy receiving 

non-liquid assets while John retained his earning capability through the business in addition to 

the non-liquid assets he was awarded. Both parties listed monthly expenses that exceeded their 

income but John had a regular and ongoing opportunity to earn income while Amy’s prospects 

were limited and would not amount to wages sufficient to maintain her lifestyle as established 

during the marriage. We find the trial court’s award of permanent maintenance in the amount of 

$10,000 per month was not an abuse of discretion. 

¶ 28 CONCLUSION

¶ 29 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County is

affirmed. 

¶ 30 Affirmed.