Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP
Chicago, Lake Forest and Wheaton, Illinois
Telephone: (312) 641-5560; Facsimile: (312) 641-6361:
www.sdflaw.com; dschiller@sdflaw.com
Michelle A. Lawless
The Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC
161 N. Clark St. Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois
Telephone: (312) 741-1092
www.malfamilylaw.com; michelle@malfamilylaw.com.
Dear Flash Points Readers,
I would be remiss to publish this month’s Flash Points without recognizing the recent passing of my co-author and former partner, Donald C. Schiller. If you practiced domestic relations law in Illinois, you knew of Don Schiller. He was a legal visionary, brilliant strategist, and tireless advocate. His many achievements and accomplishments are too numerous to list out here, as they were vast. I was honored to co-author Flash Points with him for almost 14 years. His vision was that they would be a useful tool for attorneys who practiced in the trenches each day. And this month I publish them in his honor and remembrance – Michelle Lawless.
There were no reported opinions this month. The following are Rule 23 decisions.
- De facto marriage upheld and maintenance terminated based on cohabitation.In a post-judgment action, the trial court terminated wife’s maintenance based on her continuing cohabitation on a conjugal basis and she appealed the ruling along with the trial court’s decision that she must reimburse approximately $50,000 in maintenance paid by husband to wife during the cohabitation period. The Appellate Court affirmed. Wife and her boyfriend were engaged by the time of the hearing; she had received a $90,000 vehicle from him which was registered in both of their names; she was on health insurance through his company as well as his family cell phone plan. Further, she and her fiancé had purchased property together and were in the process of building a home on the property and held a joint bank account which was primarily used for the construction of their new home. The financial entanglement of the wife and her boyfriend indicated that they were in a de facto marriage since June 2018 and all maintenance payments (with the exception of a few corollary credits) had to be reimbursed to husband. Hunter v. Hunter, 2024 IL App (5th) 230454-U.
Hunter v. Hunter - Termination of maintenance upheld. In a post-judgment action, husband filed a petition to modify or terminate his permanent maintenance obligation in light of anticipated and imminent retirement. The trial court denied his petition finding that he failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances and the Appellate Court reversed. On remand the trial court upheld the permanent maintenance obligation but modified the award to an above-guideline amount of $807.78. The trial court further ordered that husband would receive a credit for the amount he overpaid retroactive to the date of his retirement. Husband appealed and the case returned to the Appellate Court. The Court acknowledged that it was undisputed that a maintenance award based on the parties’ respective incomes would have yielded a payment of $0, but that the trial court has the ability to deviate from guidelines after it considers all Section 504(a) and 510(a-5) factors, which it did in this case. The trial court’s award of $807 essentially granted wife her requested maintenance amount. The trial court properly addressed all factors in its decision including but not limited to her significant medical needs, both parties’ retired status, both parties’ respective assets, and husband’s good faith retirement at age 70. The trial court’s decision to deviate upward to award wife $807 per month which was her monthly shortfall was not an abuse of discretion when husband had significant assets out of which he could pay such support. Bartlett v. Quinn, 2024 IL App (1st) 230624-U.