Court Opinion

ID: 9947961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 22:04:32.091469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:48.342148
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (5th) 230409-U
             NOTICE
                                                                                           NOTICE
 Decision filed 03/05/24. The
                                                                                This order was filed under
 text of this decision may be               NO. 5-23-0409
                                                                                Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
 changed or corrected prior to
                                                                                not precedent except in the
 the filing of a Petition for                  IN THE                           limited circumstances allowed
 Rehearing or the disposition of
                                                                                under Rule 23(e)(1).
 the same.
                                   APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                               FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

In re MARRIAGE OF                         )     Appeal from the
                                          )     Circuit Court of
BARBARA J. McALLISTER,                    )     Shelby County.
                                          )
      Petitioner-Appellant,               )
                                          )
and                                       )     No. 16-D-17
                                          )
ROBERT D. McALLISTER,                     )     Honorable
                                          )     Amanda S. Ade-Harlow,
      Respondent-Appellee.                )     Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

         PREIDING JUSTICE VAUGHAN delivered the judgment of the court.
         Justices Boie and McHaney concurred in the judgment.

                                            ORDER

¶1       Held: The trial court’s order terminating respondent’s maintenance obligation and
               entering judgment in favor of respondent is affirmed where a de facto marriage
               was established, and the trial court’s credibility rulings and findings of fact were
               not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶2       Petitioner, Barbara J. McAllister, appeals the trial court’s January 19, 2023, order

terminating respondent, Robert D. McAllister’s maintenance obligation, following the court’s May

9, 2023, order denying Barbara’s posthearing motion. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶3                                      I. BACKGROUND

¶4       Barbara and Robert were married on November 26, 1977. On April 5, 2016, Barbara filed

a petition for dissolution of marriage. At that time, both parties were 62 years old, and their children

                                                   1
were over the age of 18. Barbara owned her own business and Robert was a farmer. The parties

ultimately entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA).

¶5     On October 16, 2018, a judgment of dissolution of marriage was issued incorporating the

parties’ MSA after finding the document was entered into voluntarily and was not unconscionable.

The relevant terms of the MSA included the following: Robert would take possession of the marital

residence, and Barbara would purchase a new residence. Barbara would take title to her business

and all of its accompanying materials and equipment. Robert would take title to the farm, the

acreage, all of the accompanying materials and equipment, as well as any grain currently in storage

and the crops in the ground. In consideration of the fact that Robert’s assets were in excess of

Barbara’s, Robert agreed to pay Barbara an “equalization payment” of $1.5 million consisting of

three payments to be issued between September 2018 and December 2019. The MSA also required

Robert to pay Barbara monthly maintenance payments of $4000 until November 4, 2019, at which

time the monthly payment would reduce to $3000. The MSA provided for modification or

termination of maintenance as allowed by statute or upon either party’s receipt of Social Security

benefits, Barbara’s cohabitation on a conjugal basis, Barbara’s remarriage, substantial changes in

either party’s income, or the death of either party.

¶6     Around the same time that the judgment of dissolution was entered, Barbara met John

Philbin on an online dating service and began communicating with John. John first met Barbara in

person when she was looking for a house in Missouri and joined Barbara and her realtor when they

were viewing houses. John purchased a cross necklace for Barbara for her birthday in December

2018. In January 2019, Barbara moved out of the marital home to her new home in Missouri. She

hired movers to assist her with the move. While John did not assist with the move, he later

presented to Barbara’s residence after Barbara called him expressing concern about the drunk

                                                  2
movers who refused to leave. John was successful in getting the movers to leave. From January

2019 to April 2019, Barbara and John continued communicating and would go on dates about once

a week. Beginning in April 2019, John and his disabled adult son, Drew, began spending the night

once a week at Barbara’s house during which time Barbara and John were sexually intimate.

Barbara and John also attended the birthday party for John’s granddaughter in April 2019. On July

31, 2019, Barbara purchased a GMC Acadia in a cash deal. She listed John as the “transfer on

death beneficiary” on the Acadia’s title.

¶7     In August 2019, John’s son Kyle moved back from Seattle and moved into Barbara’s house

until November 2019. John and Drew continued to visit Barbara and spend the night at her home

about once a week. While Kyle was living in Barbara’s house, Barbara, John, Kyle, and Drew

would eat dinner together once or twice a month. In either October or November 2019, John and

Drew accompanied Barbara on a trip to the Indianapolis, Indiana, area, to visit Barbara’s son and

grandson.

¶8     In January 2020, Barbara and John went shopping for a truck. On January 9, 2020, Barbara

purchased a 2019 Ford F-150 and listed John as the transfer on death beneficiary on the vehicle’s

title. That same month, John’s employment closed due to COVID. Barbara provided money to

John to pay his rent in January and February 2020, because John no longer had sufficient funds

due to his employment situation. Thereafter, John contracted COVID, and in March 2020, Barbara

insisted John and Drew move into her home. John and Drew accepted Barbara’s offer and moved

into Barbara’s home, legally changing their addresses in order to receive mail. From March 2020

to May 2020, John was seriously ill with COVID and subsequently developed pneumonia. Barbara

offered to take John to the doctor, but John refused her assistance. During John’s illness, Barbara

                                                3
and John were not sexually intimate; however, upon John’s recovery in May 2020, they resumed

sexual relations, and John and Drew continued to reside with Barbara in her home.

¶9     In September 2020, Barbara and John attended John’s son Sean’s wedding. They traveled

to the event separately. Barbara specifically requested not to be in any of the photographs. She

presented a gift, consisting of two coolers, as a wedding present. In October 2020, John found new

employment that took him out of the home on weekdays during business hours. During John’s

absence, Barbara would look after Drew who could not be alone. While John and Drew lived at

the home, they would help with taking out the garbage. Barbara would buy groceries and

household items. Barbara taught Drew how to do his laundry and occasionally purchased shirts

and socks for John. Although Barbara and John did not exchange Christmas gifts, Barbara would

purchase Christmas and birthday presents for Drew.

¶ 10   On November 19, 2020, Robert filed a petition to terminate Barbara’s maintenance. The

petition alleged that Barbara was currently cohabitating with another person on a resident,

continuing, and conjugal basis. The petition requested termination of Robert’s maintenance

obligation and reimbursement of maintenance previously paid from the date of Barbara’s original

cohabitation to the present. On December 12, 2020, Barbara filed a response denying Robert’s

allegations regarding cohabitation. John and Drew moved out of Barbara’s home in April 2021.

¶ 11   Discovery commenced in the pending litigation and the depositions of Robert, Barbara,

and John were taken. On March 10, 2022, Robert filed a motion for summary judgment and a

memorandum in support thereof. On March 25, 2022, Barbara filed a petition for attorney fees and

costs related to the litigation. In support, Barbara alleged that she was unemployed and lacked

liquid assets that could be used to pay her attorney fees. On May 9, 2022, Barbara filed a response

to Robert’s motion for summary judgment claiming that Barbara and John were victims of

                                                4
circumstances stemming from COVID that led to their temporary living arrangement. The

response further argued that Barbara and John’s relationship never grew into a “deeper level of

commitment, intended permanence, and material partnership akin to marriage.” Robert and

Barbara’s pleadings were supplemented with copies of Barbara and John’s depositions. A hearing

on the motion for summary judgment was held on May 31, 2022. Following the hearing, the court

denied the motion for summary judgment.

¶ 12   The trial on Robert’s motion to terminate maintenance and Barbara’s petition for attorney

fees proceeded on September 27, 2022. Robert’s testimony revealed that he hired a private

investigator and found out Barbara was living with John. Thereafter, he filed the subject petition

to terminate maintenance. He identified the MSA and confirmed that he paid the $1.5 million as

required under the settlement agreement. He testified that he took out a loan on the farmland to

pay Barbara the equalization amounts required under the MSA. He further testified that he made

all the required maintenance payments under the MSA.

¶ 13   Barbara was called as an adverse witness. She was currently 68 years old and last worked

in December 2018. She confirmed meeting John online in October 2018 and spoke with him online

through December 2018. She first met John when she went to look at properties with her realtor at

the end of December 2018. She stated that John’s apartment was 30 to 45 minutes away depending

on the traffic. She agreed that she began a committed dating relationship with John in January

2019, and they were in a monogamous relationship thereafter. They would go out on dates about

once a week. Beginning in April 2019, John began spending the night at her home, at which time

Barbara and John engaged in an intimate, sexual relationship. When John would spend the night,

his son Drew would also spend the night. These sleepovers continued until March 2020, when

John and Drew moved in with Barbara.

                                                5
¶ 14   Barbara testified that John moved in because he was ill, and his transfer of residence had

nothing to do with a romantic, monogamous relationship. She stated that John had COVID and did

not get back to 100% for two to three months. They did not have sexual relations while John was

ill. Barbara disputed that she and John resumed a sexual relationship after John recovered, but after

being reminded of her prior deposition testimony, she admitted she and John resumed a sexual

relationship after his recovery. Barbara testified that she helped take care of Drew while John was

sick but denied teaching Drew how to do laundry. After being impeached with her prior deposition

testimony, Barbara admitted teaching Drew how to do laundry and agreed she would also remind

Drew to take his medication.

¶ 15   Barbara testified that John had three other children in addition to Drew: Michael, Sean, and

Kyle, who were also adults. She agreed that she allowed Kyle to live with her from August 2019

to November 2019. She stated this was because John did not have room for Kyle at his apartment.

She was unsure if the reason was because she was dating John. Once again, portions of her

deposition testimony were reviewed at which time she admitted only speaking with Kyle two or

three times before he moved in. Barbara then agreed that she allowed Kyle to live with her because

she was dating John. She agreed that once or twice a month, while Kyle was living with her, she,

John, Drew, and Kyle would have dinner together. She would usually buy the groceries or pay for

the meals that were ordered out. She also agreed that occasionally John or Kyle would do the

cooking or ordering out, stating “to some extent” it was a shared duty.

¶ 16   Barbara agreed that she met all of John’s children as well as one of his grandchildren. She

was invited to, and attended, the birthday party of John’s grandchild, who turned two, with all of

John’s family in April 2019. She also attended the wedding of John’s son, Sean, in September

2020. She stated that she and John did not go together; she drove herself. She stated that she had

                                                 6
previously spent time or spoken to Sean a couple of times prior to the wedding. She stated she was

invited to the wedding because of her relationship with John as well as letting Kyle live with her

when he did not have a place to live. She disputed buying a wedding present but, after reviewing

her prior deposition testimony, admitted she purchased two coolers as a wedding gift. She agreed

that John also met her son Robert in October 2019 who lived around Indianapolis, Indiana. She

disputed spending the night in Indianapolis. She believed they returned home later that evening

and disputed John’s prior testimony to the contrary.

¶ 17   She stated that Drew and John would take out the garbage and occasionally let her dog out

while they were living at her house. She disputed that she and John shared the cooking

responsibility. After being reminded of her prior deposition testimony, Barbara stated that John

occasionally cooked, but continued to dispute that they occasionally shared the responsibility.

While John and Drew lived with Barbara, they had to keep their areas clean, but she primarily

cleaned the house, especially the common areas. Once in a while they would help her. Barbara

disputed spending a lot of time with Drew, stating he was usually in his room. She agreed that she,

John, and Drew resided together from March 2020 to April 2021. She stated that John was sick a

large part of that time and thereafter he was trying to find a job. When she was reminded that her

deposition testimony indicated that John had recovered by May 2020, she admitted her prior

testimony was correct.

¶ 18   Barbara agreed that she and John would spend time together watching television or movies,

but she also worked outside a lot. She stated John only helped her in the garden once. Upon review

of her interrogatories, she agreed that she indicated that she, John, and Drew watched TV, movies,

cooked, hunted for rocks, played video games, and rode in her golf cart. At the trial, Barbara

clarified that only she and Drew would hunt for rocks, and it was their special thing. She admitted

                                                7
having affection for Drew but stated she did not love him. She further disputed ever having a deep

romantic connection with John. She said that she liked him and that was why they dated—to see

where it would go—but it did not work out. She stated that she never had hopes of it being a long-

term relationship.

¶ 19   Barbara denied doing John’s laundry when he had COVID. After being reminded of her

deposition testimony, Barbara admitted that she did John’s laundry. Barbara stated that she bought

Christmas and birthday gifts for Drew but that she and John did not exchange gifts because John

had no money. She disputed that John helped her in the garden except one time when he helped

her get dirt for the garden. She agreed that John and Drew changed their address to hers when they

moved in in March 2020, began receiving mail at her address, and that she listed John as the

transfer on death beneficiary on the vehicles purchased during their relationship. She stated that

John did not drive the Ford for regular use. She agreed that John did not drive his Nissan because

he could not pay the tax on the vehicle required to get the license plate and stated John borrowed

one of Sean’s vehicles for regular use. She stated that she could not remember when she sold the

F-150 truck, but after reviewing the title, agreed it was in April 2021, after John moved out of the

house. She agreed that John and Drew continued to reside with her even after John found

employment in October 2020, and that they never paid rent while they lived with her. She said

they stayed that long because John had to save up money to get an apartment.

¶ 20   Barbara stated that she no longer had $71,000 in her checking account. She currently only

had about $40,000. She stated that money went to pay attorneys who were suing a contractor that

failed to put a pool in correctly and caused $250,000 in damage to her property. She confirmed her

retirement accounts continued to have a combined value of over $1 million. She agreed that

COVID was happening during her relationship with John and that most bars and restaurants were

                                                 8
closed. She did not know if resorts and airlines were shut down because she did not make any

plans to go anywhere. Barbara stated that she never loved John. She stated that he came to live

with her because he had COVID and could not afford his rent. She suggested he move in with her

and stated the arrangement was never meant to be permanent. She stated that both John and Drew

had their own rooms at her house, and after she and John had sex, he would generally go to his

own room. She stated that she and John only had sex twice after he recovered from COVID. She

and John never shared a bank account, and no funds were ever commingled. She did not cosign

any debts with John, never made medical appointments for John or Drew, did not have or give

power of attorney to John, they did not purchase gifts for each other, and she never changed her

Facebook relationship status. When asked on redirect about sharing a bed with John and having

sex once a week after he recovered, Barbara stated that she previously misspoke at her deposition

and her testimony at the trial was correct. She stated she was unsure of when her relationship with

John ended, but when reminded of her deposition testimony that provided a date of April 2021,

Barbara agreed with the date.

¶ 21   John testified that he was employed as a financial advisor prior to COVID. He was

currently a mid-level manager for Medicare enrollments. John met Barbara on an online dating

site in October 2018. Their first in-person date was in December 2018, and they began dating

seriously in January 2019, and he did not date anyone but Barbara from that time until April 2021.

In the first year, he and Barbara would go on weekend dates. They either talked or saw each other

at least once a week but did not do a lot of going out for dinner or movies. He and Barbara began

an intimate sexual relationship between January 2019 and April 2019. On average, he would spend

approximately one night a week at Barbara’s house. His adult, disabled son, Drew, met Barbara in

                                                9
January 2019 and he would spend the night when John did. John stated that he was in love with

Barbara and thought she was going to be his “forever.”

¶ 22   John testified that he, Drew, and Barbara visited Barbara’s son near Indianapolis in October

or November 2019. They spent the night and then drove back the next day. He knew it was winter

because it snowed on the way back. They stayed in a hotel and shared the same room. He agreed

that Barbara met all of his children and his son, Kyle, lived with Barbara from August 2019 to

November 2019. He agreed that Barbara allowed Kyle to live with her because she was in a

relationship with him and wanted to help Kyle. John stated that Barbara also attended his son

Sean’s wedding in September 2020. He could not remember if Barbara attended the rehearsal

dinner. He stated that Barbara was invited to the wedding as his guest. Before John could even ask

her to be in any pictures at the event, Barbara told him that she did not want to be in any pictures.

He stated that was where things were starting to go south.

¶ 23   John testified that he contracted COVID in February 2020 and he and Drew moved into

Barbara’s house in March 2020. He stayed there at her insistence because he was so sick. He did

not have anywhere to go, and it was a dire situation. He stated his only other option was to move

to Chicago and live with his father. He left his apartment where he lived for four or five years

because he had no money to pay rent. He agreed he had a 401k with some money in it but stated

he needed that to get back on his feet and left it as an emergency reserve in case something

happened to Drew. John also stated that he would have been taxed a 10% penalty if he took the

money out. John confirmed that in addition to his 401k funds he also received stimulus money

comprised of two checks totaling $3200. He agreed that he changed his address to Barbara’s

address. Drew also moved in and lived there full time while John was there, except when Drew

was visiting other family. John and Drew moved out in April 2021.

                                                 10
¶ 24   John stated that when he and Drew moved in with Barbara she was very cordial and helpful

towards Drew. John believed that Barbara loved Drew. They would go rock hunting to get out of

the house during COVID. This was only occasionally—maybe once or twice a month—because

usually Drew just played video games. They did go out to dinner for one occasion when the

restaurants reopened. Barbara paid. He and Barbara would occasionally watch television together

a couple nights a week to find out what was going on in the world. They would also occasionally

share meals together, but it was not a regular staple; this was only a couple of nights a week. When

confronted with his prior testimony about how often they ate together, John said, “Let’s just say

three” nights a week. He stated that Barbara provided all the groceries and day-to-day necessities

including toothpaste, deodorant, toilet paper, shampoo, and conditioner.

¶ 25   John stated that he began feeling better in May 2020 and at that time he and Barbara

resumed their sexual relationship. It would happen approximately three times a month. He believed

the relationship ended around December 2020 and he moved out in April 2021. He stated he only

drove the Ford pickup truck a few times and would usually borrow a vehicle from his son. He

agreed that he was with Barbara when she purchased the truck, which was two months before he

moved in. He stated that he did not know that Barbara had listed him as the death beneficiary of

that vehicle until his deposition was taken. He stated that Barbara took him to the doctor when he

was ill and forced him to go. He stated that while he was sick, Barbara did his laundry and changed

the bedding in his room. They did not make any purchases together or share a bank account.

¶ 26   When John went back to work in October 2020, Drew usually stayed with Barbara. She

bought birthday and Christmas gifts for Drew. She also took him to the fair. While John did not

buy Barbara anything while they were living together, he did buy her a cross necklace for her

birthday in December 2018. She bought him shirts and socks after he moved in, and she washed

                                                11
his laundry. He stated that the relationship had already tanked by the time Robert filed the petition.

He said that he only intended to stay at Barbara’s house until he got back on his feet physically

and financially. He stated that he slept in Barbara’s bedroom until about September 2020. They

went out to dinner once and to one movie. They talked about going to church but never got there.

John confirmed that Barbara loaned him a few thousand dollars in January or February 2020.

¶ 27   John stated that Barbara’s move to Missouri was not because of him, and her house was 40

miles away from his apartment. He did not help her pick out a house or help her move. She hired

a bunch of ex-cons to help her move and he had to go over and get them to leave.

¶ 28   Following the hearing, the court requested the parties provide written closing arguments.

On January 19, 2023, the trial court issued its order on Robert’s petition for termination of

maintenance and Barbara’s petition for attorney fees. The court found that while Robert, John, and

Barbara provided testimony, only Robert and John were credible and Barbara’s testimony “was

predominantly not credible.” The order then addressed the six factors relevant to determining

whether a de facto marriage existed. As to the length of the relationship, the court found that

Barbara and John were in an exclusive relationship from January 2019 to April 2021. John moved

into Barbara’s home in March 2020 and was loaned money from Barbara to pay his rent in January

and February 2020. The order noted Barbara’s care of John’s son, Drew, both when John was sick

and when John went back to work. The order also found that Barbara minimized her care for Drew

whereas John’s testimony described the amount of care necessary. The court also relied on John’s

testimony as to how long they slept in the same bed and when the relationship went sour. The court

found that Barbara’s actions from March 2020 until Christmas 2020 were contrary to her testimony

about her having no desire to remarry.

                                                 12
¶ 29   As to the amount of time together, the court noted the activities that Barbara and John

shared as well as the activities Barbara and Drew shared. These included meals in the home,

gardening, a visit to Barbara’s son’s house, attending John’s son’s wedding, birthdays, a trip taking

Drew to the fair, riding on golf carts, and rock hunting. The court noted that based on the testimony

provided, neither Barbara nor John seemed to be the type to vacation away individually let alone

together, further noting that COVID prevented vacationing for the most part. The third factor

addressed the activities John and Barbara engaged in and the court referenced its previous findings.

As to the fourth factor, the court noted the couple shared no debts or assets but there was no need

since Barbara was paying for every need of John and Drew since John was unemployed. The court

compared this to a “single income household.” The court also noted that Barbara listed John as the

beneficiary of both vehicles upon her death and found this evidenced a commitment to permanence

with the relationship. As to the issue of intended permanence, the court acknowledged that Barbara

testified that she would never remarry but placed little weight on the statement, finding it was

made in furtherance of Barbara’s benefit and that the court found Barbara to be mostly not credible.

The court also noted John’s testimony as to his belief that the two were in a committed relationship,

believed he loved her, and the relationship was one of a long term. The court noted that John

accompanied Barbara when she was looking for a home, the couple was in an exclusive

relationship, one of John’s sons moved in with Barbara in 2019, and Barbara placed John’s name

as the beneficiary of both her vehicles. The court also acknowledged Barbara’s testimony stating

that John only moved into her house because he had COVID. However, the court noted that

Barbara could have kept paying John’s rent and instead decided to take on the financial burden of

moving John and his son into her home and providing for them until April 2021. The court did not

find the testimony claiming the situation was temporary credible, noting that even when John

                                                 13
found employment he never paid for rent or assisted with any household bills. Finally, the court

also addressed the effect the relationship had on Barbara’s need for maintenance. The court found

that Barbara was using her maintenance award and Social Security income to support John, Drew,

and Kyle while they lived in her home, noting that none of them paid rent or contributed to the

household expenses. The court noted the testimony revealed that John and Barbara did not go out

because COVID closed everything down and there was no testimony that they did not go out

because they were not a long-term couple. The court found, based on the testimony provided, that

it was a reasonable inference to find the couple would have dined out more often if not for COVID

and found the same true about purchases for birthdays, holidays, medical appointments, purchasing

vehicles, vacations, and movies. The court also addressed Barbara’s argument that but for COVID,

she and John would not have moved in together. The court again found that other options, instead

of cohabitation, existed, noting that that testimony revealed that Barbara insisted on John moving

in with her, and once he did, Barbara paid all the bills, provided food and daily toiletries, took care

of Johns’s son, spent time with John and his son, and after John recovered, continued an intimate

and long-term relationship for another 11 months in the same house. The court found that Barbara

cohabited with John on a resident, continuing conjugal basis and they were committed to one

another with intended permanency.

¶ 30   Although the court found it unnecessary based on its previous findings, the court also

considered the basis for maintenance termination set forth in the MSA. The court noted that the

MSA language provided for termination of maintenance solely on Barbara’s “cohabitation on a

conjugal basis.” The court found the facts “clearly showed cohabitation on a conjugal basis without

consideration of commitment and intended permanence.” Thereafter, the court terminated Robert’s

obligation to pay maintenance retroactive to April 1, 2020, and issued judgment against Barbara

                                                  14
in the principal amount of $102,000 representing maintenance paid at $3000 a month from April

1, 2020, through January 1, 2023. The order also denied Barbara’s request for attorney fees.

¶ 31   On February 21, 2023, Barbara moved for reconsideration. In support, Barbara argued that

her testimony “predominantly corroborated” John Philbin’s testimony and therefore finding her

testimony lacked credibility but John’s was credible was erroneous. Barbara also argued that the

court’s six-factor analysis was insufficient, claiming the court’s finding that Barbara insisted John

move in with her had no support, the decision was based on hypotheticals, and the court

erroneously weighed the effect on Barbara’s financial needs. The motion was set for hearing on

May 9, 2023. Following argument, the court addressed the claims raised by Barbara and denied

the request for reconsideration. Barbara timely appealed.

¶ 32                                    II. ANALYSIS

¶ 33   On appeal, Barbara contends the trial court’s credibility ruling is against the manifest

weight because it found John’s testimony credible and Barbara’s was not, despite John’s testimony

corroborating Barbara’s testimony. Barbara also argues that the court sought out certain facts that

fit into each category for consideration and failed to consider the totality of the circumstances. She

cites, for example, the court found the lack of evidence regarding certain factors required further

consideration since COVID was in place at that time. Barbara contends that the court’s reliance on

COVID was only a benefit to Robert, and the court failed to consider COVID when it weighed in

Barbara’s favor. More specifically, she argues that it was unfair for the court to consider COVID

as an explanation as to why the parties did not vacation or go out to eat, but not to consider COVID

as the basis of why the parties moved in together. Barbara also contests a statement in the order

about her not vacationing with John, as well as the court’s finding that the activities she and John

did share were activities “people in a committed relationship do,” despite the lack of a shared bank

                                                 15
account and commingled assets. As to intended permanence, Barbara takes issue with the court’s

reliance on John’s testimony that he believed he was in a committed relationship with Barbara,

believed he loved her, and that the relationship was long term because other parts of John’s

testimony did not reveal as strong of a commitment, and her own testimony did not reveal a

commitment. In response, Robert argues that the trial court’s findings were not against the manifest

weight of the evidence and therefore the decision should be affirmed.

¶ 34   Upon review of a trial court’s ruling on a petition to terminate maintenance based on the

existence of a de facto marriage, this court will not disturb the conclusion, unless that ruling is

against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill. 2d 489, 523 (2004).

“A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is clearly

evident or the decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence.” In re Marriage of

Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 40. Section 510(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of

Marriage Act provides for a termination of maintenance, based on cohabitation and states that the

“obligation to pay future maintenance is terminated *** if the party receiving maintenance

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

2022). The obligation terminates on “the date the court finds cohabitation began” and entitles the

obligor “to reimbursement for all maintenance paid from that date forward.” Id.

¶ 35   We first address Barbara’s argument that the trial court’s credibility ruling was against the

manifest weight of the evidence. More specifically, Barbara argues that the court ruling cannot be

upheld because her testimony was consistent with that provided by John, yet the court found John’s

testimony credible and her testimony not credible.

¶ 36   Upon our review of the record, we note that while there were instances of consistency,

Barbara was repeatedly impeached with her prior deposition testimony. In some instances, she

                                                16
stated the deposition testimony was correct and in others she claimed her trial testimony was

correct. Notably, these instances occurred when she was questioned about evidence related to the

six factors, and in each instance, Barbara’s trial testimony minimized her actions despite answers

previously provided at her deposition. As the trial court was in the best position to determine the

credibility of the witnesses, we defer to the trial court’s credibility ruling. In re Marriage of

Manker, 375 Ill. App. 3d 465, 477 (2007). Here, the record clearly reveals numerous instances

where Barbara’s credibility was called into question. Accordingly, we cannot hold that the trial

court’s finding that Barbara’s testimony was not credible was against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

¶ 37   Barbara next contends that the court sought out the presence of certain facts that fit into

each of the six factors and failed to consider the totality of the circumstances. Here, neither party

disputes the trial court’s reliance on the six factors used for consideration of a de facto marriage

originally found in In re Marriage of Herrin, 262 Ill. App. 3d 573, 577 (1994). Accordingly, we

will consider the arguments presented in conjunction with those factors that address (1) the length

of the relationship, (2) the amount of time the couple spends together, (3) the nature of the

activities the couple engages in, (4) the interrelation of their personal affairs, (5) any vacations

together, and (6) how holidays are spent. Id.

¶ 38   The first factor involves the length of the relationship. Here, Barbara concedes that the

exclusive dating relationship lasted from January 2019 to April 2021, and that John moved in with

her in March 2020. Barbara also concedes that she and John resided together on a conjugal basis

and shared a bed during that time. However, Barbara takes issue with the court’s consideration of

the parties’ lack of vacationing or going out to dinner in conjunction with COVID. Barbara does

not contest that COVID was prevalent for a good portion of the time that John resided with her,

                                                 17
and our review of the record confirms that prior to COVID the couple would go on dates, which

included going out for dinner and seeing a movie. The evidence further revealed that when the

COVID restrictions were lifted, Barbara and John travelled together to visit their relatives,

celebrate birthdays, and attend weddings. The court’s inference that but for COVID, the couple

would have been doing more things outside of the house is reasonable. Barbara also contends that

the court failed to weigh the length and magnitude of cohabitation between John and Barbara in

light of the consequences forced by COVID from 2020 through 2021. We disagree. John’s change

of residence in March 2020 was at Barbara’s insistence as seen by John’s testimony. Nothing in

the record supports the conclusion that other options did not exist.

¶ 39   John testified that he could have moved to Chicago and lived with his father. Additionally,

Barbara agreed that she paid John’s rent the previous January and February and no rationale was

provided as to why Barbara did not continue with that action instead of insisting that John and

Drew move into her house. Further, while Barbara contends the situation was not intended to be

permanent, there was no dispute that once John recovered from COVID in May 2020, the couple

resumed sexual relations, attended a wedding later that year, and continued to reside in the same

house until April 2021. Even after John finally found employment, the couple continued to reside

together for another six months, during which time Barbara cared for John’s son while John was

at work. As such, we disagree with Barbara’s contention that the trial court failed to consider

COVID and its effect on the couple or the totality of the circumstances when addressing the length

of the relationship.

¶ 40   The second factor addresses the amount of time spent together. Here, Barbara concedes the

majority of findings by the trial court which included Barbara and John sharing meals in the home,

gardening together, going to Barbara’s son’s house together, going to John’s son’s wedding, and

                                                18
spending holidays and birthdays together. The court also made findings about Barbara’s time with

Drew that included going to a county fair, riding on the golf cart, and rock hunting.

¶ 41   The sole issue raised by Barbara is the court’s statement that “[n]othing about John and

[Barbara] suggest that they were the type to vacation away individually let alone together” and

further noted that COVID “prevented vacationing for the most part.” Barbara contends the court’s

statement “was clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and no [sic] supported by the evidence.” However,

the court was correct in noting that when Barbara and John were together, vacations were

prevented by COVID. This finding was supported by John’s testimony that revealed people were

being ticketed just for being out during the COVID restrictions in St. Louis. The court’s finding

that there was no evidence that Barbara and John were able, or even wanted to vacation alone or

as a couple, was also supported by the record. For example, Barbara testified that she did not know

if resorts or airports were closed during COVID because she had not made any plans to go

anywhere. Further, Barbara’s claim that John testified that he and Barbara did not talk about taking

trips together misstates John’s testimony. John testified that when he and Barbara were dating,

they talked about places they wanted to visit. However, they never talked about going to see those

places because “that would have required money.” Given the evidence of record, we cannot hold

that the trial court’s findings related to the amount of time the couple spent together were against

the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 42   The third factor involves the nature of activities the couple engaged in. Here, Barbara

argues that the trial court failed to find that such activities amounted to a de facto marriage and

instead only stated that these were activities “people in a committed relationship do.” Barbara

contends that the trial court just “checked off the boxes” and failed to weigh the specific

circumstances of the relationship or weigh the seriousness of those activities. We again disagree.

                                                19
¶ 43   The court found the couple “spent a lot of time together on a day in, day out basis” and

stated the activities in which John and Barbara participated were “common activities that people

in committed relationships do.” Notably, these activities included eating meals together, Barbara

taking John to meet her son Robert in the Indianapolis area, John taking Barbara to his

granddaughter’s second birthday party, and both parties attending the wedding for John’s son. On

appeal, Barbara argues that the court ignored the seriousness and magnitude of the last event by

failing to note that John and Barbara did not drive to the wedding together, the wedding was only

15 miles from Barbara’s home, Barbara did not attend the rehearsal dinner, Barbara did not appear

in any of the pictures because she did not want to be in any of the wedding photos, and the

relationship was already starting to deteriorate. However, those facts do not diminish Barbara’s

attendance at the wedding, and, if anything, bolster the court’s findings because, taking those facts

as true, it would have been more reasonable for Barbara not to attend the wedding at all when she

was only invited as John’s guest for the wedding based on his testimony.

¶ 44   Barbara also contends that the court’s reliance on the fact that the parties spent holidays

and birthdays together was unwarranted because she and John did not exchange gifts and it was

“not the All-American family scene.” However, the record confirms that Barbara and John agreed

not to exchange gifts because he had no money. The record also confirms that despite Barbara

having two children of her own, Barbara was spending her holidays with John and Drew. The

record also confirmed that a Christmas tree was put up in the home and Barbara bought birthday

and Christmas gifts for John’s son Drew, took Drew to the fair, and rock hunted with him on her

property.

¶ 45   Notably, there is no dispute as to whether the parties participated in the numerous above-

stated activities. Nor is there any dispute with the court’s finding that these were “common

                                                 20
activities that people in committed relationships do.” Instead, Barbara contends that the court’s

finding does not equate to a de facto marriage because the activities did not include going on

numerous trips (In re Marriage of Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 13) or exchanging

expensive gifts. We disagree that elaborate vacations or luxurious gifts are required to find a

de facto marriage. Indeed, such events or exchanges could be considered rare exceptions in most

people’s lives. What is obvious, is the fact that while Barbara and John’s activities may seem

mundane when compared with people living a lavish lifestyle, they participated in exciting

activities of visiting grandchildren as well as the simple activities in the home, together.

Accordingly, we do not find the court’s ruling was arbitrary, not based on the evidence, or was not

indicative of a de facto marriage.

¶ 46   The next factor is the interrelation of personal affairs. Barbara’s brief combined this factor

with the sixth factor which addresses the effect on the recipient’s need for maintenance, and

therefore, we will also consider the factors together. Here, Barbara argues that the court failed to

put more weight on the fact that the parties did not maintain a joint bank account or commingle

their funds. We find this argument has little merit as the evidence revealed that, for most of the

relationship, there were no funds or assets to commingle. When John moved in with Barbara, he

had no job, no income, and could not even afford to put license plates on his personal vehicle or

pay rent. Barbara was the only party with money and the evidence revealed that she used her own

money to feed, shelter, clothe, and care for John and his son, Drew. While Barbara downplays the

significance of listing John as the transfer on death beneficiary for both vehicles, such act is not

indicative of a transient or temporary relationship.

¶ 47   Barbara also relies on In re Marriage of Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, ¶ 185, to claim

the “key factor” for these issues is whether the couple’s financial affairs were commingled like

                                                 21
that of a married couple. Barbara claims that here, as in Edson, there was nothing to untangle. We

disagree. First, each case seeking a termination of maintenance must be decided on its own facts.

In re Marriage of Sunday, 354 Ill. App. 3d 184, 189 (2004). However, the facts in Edson are easily

distinguishable from the case at bar. In Edson, there was no evidence that Julee (the ex-wife) or

Curt (Julee’s boyfriend) abandoned their own residences. Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, ¶ 54.

Curt continued to reside in his apartment, paid the rent and utilities, and performed repairs and

maintenance on that property. Id. Curt had lived at that apartment for 12 years, his mail was

delivered to his apartment, and Julee never assisted in paying Curt’s rent. Id. ¶ 69. Ninety percent

of Curt’s work took him out of town, so he would only see Julee two to five times a month. Id.

¶ 55. While Curt’s son, Gavin, lived with Julee for two weeks so he could study for his GED, when

Gavin did not pass the exam, Julee asked Gavin to leave, and he returned to Curt’s apartment. Id.

¶ 62. When Curt stayed with Julee, he brought his own toiletries and did not keep many personal

items at her home. Id. ¶ 70. Curt did not have keys to Julee’s home and Curt’s sons were the

beneficiaries of his financial and life insurance accounts. Id. ¶¶ 71-72.

¶ 48   Here, the only fact similar to that seen in Edson is that neither couple had joint bank

accounts or joint debt. However, in the case at bar, John was listed as the transfer on death

beneficiary for both of Barbara’s vehicles. Further, John abandoned his own apartment, moved in,

and received his mail at Barbara’s home. Even before John moved, Barbara assisted in paying

John’s rent. There was no evidence that John placed any of his, or Drew’s, personal effects in

storage when they moved in with Barbara so those items would need to be packed up and moved

when the relationship ended. Accordingly, we cannot find a lack of tangled assets as seen in Edson.

¶ 49   We further note that the statement cited by Barbara from Edson originally came from In re

Marriage of Susan, 367 Ill. App. 3d 926 (2006). In Susan, although the parties did not comingle

                                                 22
their funds, the parties lived together, shared meals together, visited family together, and attended

the wedding of a family member. Id. at 928-29. The trial court found a de facto marriage and the

finding was affirmed on appeal. Id. at 930. Notably, the Susan court found that “the only factor

from the above list that weighs against the trial court’s finding is the fourth factor: *** [the parties]

did not commingle funds or provide each other with monetary support.” Id. Here, while Barbara

contends the court failed to recognize the lack of commingled funds, such contention ignores the

fact that Barbara was providing John, and his son Drew, with both monetary and residential support

and John had little or no funds to commingle with Barbara. As such, we can find no error in the

court’s consideration of these issues.

¶ 50    Barbara also contends “the clearest example” that the circuit court’s decision was against

the manifest weight of the evidence was its reliance on John’s testimony to find intended

permanence in the relationship. More specifically, Barbara contends that the trial court’s finding

that John believed the couple was in a committed relationship, he loved Barbara, and further

believed the relationship to be one of long term was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

However, the record reveals that John testified that he loved Barbara and believed they were in a

long-term, committed relationship. While Barbara contends the court ignored John’s testimony

that he was only planning to stay with Barbara until he got better and was back on his feet, the

record revealed that John remained with Barbara after he obtained a job and was receiving income.

As such, we disagree that the court’s reliance on John’s testimony somehow renders the court’s

decision as against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 51    Barbara next focuses on her own testimony regarding the lack of permanency expected

with John’s move into her house and John’s testimony as to why he moved into Barbara’s house.

As to Barbara’s testimony, the court found it was not credible. For the reasons stated above, we

                                                   23
cannot disagree with that finding. Further, as to John’s testimony, even if John and Drew’s move

into Barbara’s residence was originally intended to be a temporary situation while John recovered

from COVID, the parties’ actions after John’s recovery showed an intent to make the relationship

permanent. It was undisputed that John recovered from COVID by May 2020. Thereafter, John

and Barbara resumed an intimate sexual relationship and John and Drew continued to live with

Barbara. Barbara and John attended Sean’s wedding in September 2020. When John obtained new

employment in October 2020, Barbara cared for Drew while John was at work. John remained

listed as the transfer on death beneficiary on both the vehicles. As noted by the trial court, Barbara

could have continued to pay John’s rent in 2020 but instead insisted that John and Drew move into

her home. Even after John received stimulus money and found new employment, Barbara did not

charge John and Drew rent for living at her home even though she was paying for all of the food

and toiletries. Based on these facts, we cannot find the trial court’s conclusion that John and

Barbara’s actions revealed an intent of permanence was against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

¶ 52   Barbara’s last argument centers on the trial court’s consideration of COVID. Here, Barbara

complains that the court only considered COVID for those issues that could be used against her

and ignored COVID when the evidence benefitted her; in support, she claims the trial court’s

findings were “atrociously arbitrary.” We disagree. The court acknowledged that John’s bout with

COVID was the culminating event that brought John into Barbara’s home. However, while both

John and Barbara claimed the arrangement was temporary, the court found their actions

undermined the credibility of that testimony, noting that John did not move out after he recovered

from COVID, and instead, the couple resumed a sexual relationship. Contrary to Barbara’s claims,

the trial court considered the uniqueness of the situation and addressed the lack of commingled

                                                 24
funds and the couple’s inability to vacation during the pandemic. While the court made inferences

based on the evidence, the inferences were not fanciful or unreasonable.

¶ 53   “[O]ur review of the trial court’s decision is not based on whether we would come to the

same conclusion as the court, but whether an ‘opposite conclusion is clearly evident’ or if the

decision is ‘unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence.’ ” Edson, 2023 IL App (1st)

230236, ¶ 185 (quoting Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 40). Barbara’s arguments ignore the

evidence or attempt to undermine the evidence relied upon by the trial court in finding a de facto

marriage. Upon our thorough review of the record, we conclude an opposite conclusion is not

evident, and the trial court’s findings were not arbitrary, unreasonable, or not based on the record.

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court’s finding of de facto marriage was not against the manifest

weight of the evidence.

¶ 54                                 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 55   For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s finding that Barbara and John’s

relationship was a de facto marriage. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating

Robert’s maintenance obligation and judgment of reimbursement against Barbara.

¶ 56   Affirmed.

                                                 25