Illinois statutory law regarding maintenance provides for termination based on “resident, continuing, conjugal cohabitation.” And in 2016, Illinois clarified its cohabitation statute. It’s now crystal clear that where a party receiving maintenance cohabits with another person in a marriage-like relationship, by operation of law the maintenance terminates retroactive to the date that the court finds that cohabitation began. Caselaw applies a non-exclusive six-factor test to determine whether cohabitation exists.
Gitlin on Divorce: A Guide to Illinois Matrimonial Law contains the authoritative discussion involving termination of maintenance due to what courts call a de facto marriage.
The most recent cases are:
Culm
Maintenance Termination Due to De-Facto Marriage-Like Relationship / Resident, continuing conjugal cohabitation–not proven
✔✔§ 17-2[m] Termination of Maintenance on Account of Nonmarital “Cohabitation”
✔§ 17-2[m][2][C] Economic Impact of Relationship
✔§ 17-2[m][3] The Maintenance Termination “Factors”
✔§ 17-2[m][3][B] Length and Continuous Nature of Relationship
✔§ 17-2[m][3][C] Amount of Time Spent Together
- 17-2[m][3][D] Nature of Joint Activities
✔§ 17-2[m][3][E] Interrelationship of Personal Affairs including Finances [and Future Planning]
- 17-2[m][3][F] Whether the Couple Vacationed and Spent Holidays together
- 17-2[m][3][G] Totality of the Evidence Including Exchange of Rings
- 17-2[m][4] Separate Residences
In re Marriage of Culm, 2025 IL App (1st) 240
No de facto marriage-like relationship existed that was intimate and relatively long-term but not consistent or monogamous. Family members had very little involvement, and there was almost no financial commingling. This case creates the “intimate and exclusive relationship” test in measuring the length of the relationship. It also introduces “future planning” as a subset of factor 4, stating that a “De facto relationship typically involves planning to be together permanently.” Weighed against that is whether the couple attempted to hide the nature of their relationship. There was no evidence of the same in this case.
Miller
Maintenance Termination Due to De-Facto Marriage-Like Relationship / Resident, continuing conjugal cohabitation–not proven
We now have the 2015 Second District decision and the 2024 Third District Miller decision involving different Miller families. The recent Miller decision reversed the trial court’s refusal to terminate maintenance in a family-involvement case (the most decisive factor), where there were separate residences and a 3-year relationship. The January 2024 Saunders case similarly reversed the trial court. Like four of the other five most recent cases, the result was ultimately a denial of termination (here, the boyfriend married someone else less than two months after the relationship’s breakup). Similarly, in Larsen, there was a directed verdict where no financial or commercial relationship. (No joint financial accounts were emphasized, including no loans taken out for one another and no contribution toward the former wife’s mortgage). The fourth appellate court case for which the result on appeal was that maintenance was not terminated is First District’s Edson decision. It involved a close case where there were separate residences (the couple could readily part ways with no more than a call or a text). Recall that in the First District’s decisions in Edson and Larsen, the appellate court affirmed the denial of maintenance termination. In each of these 2023 denials, the boyfriend did not have free access to the former wife’s house, no belongings were stored at each other’s house, and the couple did not share any financial accounts.
In re Marriage of Culm, 2025 IL App (1st) 240. Reversed granting. ✔ Denial
In re Marriage of Tammie & Douglas Miller, 2024 IL App (3d) 230098 (03/20/24) ✔ Reversed denying.
In re Marriage of Saunders, 2024 IL App (3d) 230151 (01/09/2024)✔ Reversed granting. Denial.
In re Marriage of Larsen, 2023 IL App (1st) 230212 (12/29/2023)✔ Affirmed denial. Denial.
In re Marriage of Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236 (06/20/2023) ✔ Affirmed denial. Denial.
We include comprehensive references to the spreadsheet that delineates the caselaw breakdown. We analyze each post-Sappington appellate court decision consistent with the caselaw-driven non-exclusive factors.
Of these five cases, the result following appeal was a termination of maintenance in only one case (the 2024 Miller decision, as opposed to the 2025 2nd District Miller decision involving Lorena and Jeffrey Miller).
