Hunter v. Hunter ( 2024 )

NOTICE
2024 IL App (5th) 230454-UNOTICE
Decision filed 10/28/24. The
This order was filed under
text of this decision may be NO. 5-23-0454
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
changed or corrected prior to
the filing of a Petition for not precedent except in the
Rehearing or the disposition of
IN THE limited circumstances allowed
the same. under Rule 23(e)(1).
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
ALISON HUNTER, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Petitioner-Appellant, ) Madison County.
)
v. ) No. 12-D-104
)
ROBB HUNTER, ) Honorable
) Emily J. Nielsen,
Respondent-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Vaughan and Justice Welch concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court’s decision to terminate the respondent’s maintenance
obligation and award reimbursement of overpayments beginning June 8, 2018, was
not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 The petitioner, Alison Hunter, appeals the circuit court’s decision to terminate her award
of maintenance and grant reimbursement of maintenance payments to the respondent, Robb
Hunter. For the following reasons, we affirm the circuit’s decision.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The parties were married on July 19, 1996, and a judgment of dissolution of marriage was
entered on August 15, 2014. The circuit court awarded the petitioner maintenance in the amount
of $2000 per month, to be modified and terminable as provided by law. The judgment also ordered
the parties to alternate the tax exemption/deduction for their minor child annually, beginning with
1
the respondent in tax year 2014, and continue until the child was no longer able to be claimed for
tax purposes.
¶5 On June 11, 2020, the respondent filed a motion to terminate maintenance. The respondent
alleged that the petitioner was cohabitating with Rodney Lanham, and they had been in an intimate
dating relationship for approximately five years. Lanham and the petitioner purchased real estate
together in June of 2018 and built a house together on that land. The respondent requested that the
circuit court terminate his maintenance obligation retroactively from the date when the
cohabitation began.
¶6 The petitioner filed a petition for indirect civil contempt and claimed that the respondent
claimed their minor child as a tax exemption for the tax year of 2015 and each subsequent year
thereafter. The respondent admitted to claiming the minor child as a dependent on his tax returns.
¶7 The parties agreed to suspend the respondent’s maintenance obligation in an order entered
on September 16, 2020. The issue of permanent termination of maintenance and any overpayment
reimbursements remained at issue.
¶8 The circuit court held a contempt hearing as well as a hearing on the issue of maintenance
reimbursements on March 23, 2023. The petitioner and the respondent were the only witnesses to
testify.
¶9 The petitioner testified that she had been in a relationship with Lanham for five or six years.
He became her fiancé in 2021, at Christmas time. During the time period of June 2018 to 2020,
Lanham would travel four or five days a week for work and would stay with the petitioner one or
two nights a week when he returned to the Edwardsville area. The petitioner vacationed with
Lanham at least once a year, and the petitioner would sometimes pay for her own transportation in
cash. They would also spend holidays together with their families. In October of 2018, Lanham
2
purchased a $90,000 vehicle for the petitioner as a birthday present, and both Lanham and the
petitioner were listed as the registered owners.
¶ 10 Lanham owned his own business, and since 2018, the petitioner received health insurance
through Lanham’s business. The petitioner testified that she worked for Lanham and would receive
health insurance as compensation for her employment in lieu of a paycheck. In 2017, the petitioner
and Lanham began sharing a family cell phone plan in Lanham’s name. The petitioner testified
that she would repay Lanham for her portion of the bill. Lanham owned and maintained his
residence in Glen Carbon, Illinois, and the petitioner maintained her own residence. Lanham did
not have a key to the petitioner’s residence until July 1, 2020, when they moved into their new
house together.
¶ 11 Lanham purchased land in 2018, with the intent to build a lake house. The deed was issued
on June 8, 2018, and listed the petitioner and Lanham as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.
The petitioner testified that she used her mailing address on the deed for future tax bills because
the new house had not been constructed and Lanham frequently travelled for work. On January
15, 2019, a building permit was issued in both the petitioner and Lanham’s names and listed the
petitioner’s mailing address.
¶ 12 The petitioner and Lanham opened a joint bank account on March 1, 2019. The petitioner
testified that account was for building expenses, and their builder was also listed on the bank
account. The petitioner had the ability to write personal checks from that account. A fishing boat
was purchased from their joint account and a $2000 payment was also made from the joint account
to help pay for a truck for the petitioner’s son. The petitioner maintained that she did not cohabitate
with Lanham until July 1, 2020, when they were able to move into their new house together.
3
¶ 13 The respondent testified that he saw the petitioner and Lanham in public together during
the time frame of 2018 to 2020 and they appeared to be in a dating relationship. In 2019, he
discovered that the petitioner had purchased property with Lanham. When the respondent would
spend time with his son, he would see Lanham’s car at the petitioner’s house. From June of 2018
to July 1, 2020, the respondent estimated that he saw Lanham’s car at the petitioner’s house three
or four times a month. The respondent additionally testified that he prepared his own taxes and
admitted that he claimed his son as a dependent every year.
¶ 14 The circuit court took the matter under advisement and both parties submitted proposed
orders. The circuit court found that the petitioner and Lanham were in a relationship with “a deeper
level of commitment and intended permanence.” Based on the evidence presented and the totality
of the circumstances, the circuit court found that the petitioner and Lanham began cohabitating on
a continual, conjugal basis no later than June of 2018. The circuit court found that the respondent
had paid maintenance to the petitioner through July 1, 2020.
¶ 15 The circuit court issued an order on May 26, 2023, modifying the respondent’s
maintenance obligation to $0 effective June 8, 2018. The payments made to the petitioner by the
respondent after June 8, 2018, until July 1, 2020, were overpayments. The respondent had overpaid
the petitioner $56,000. The circuit court found the respondent in indirect civil contempt and
ordered him to pay the petitioner the sum of $4000 for claiming their son as a dependent on his
tax returns in years when he was not permitted to do so. The respondent was additionally ordered
to pay attorney fees in the amount of $2575, for a total of $6575, to purge himself of contempt.
After the credit and fees were applied, the petitioner was ordered to pay the respondent the sum of
$49,425 within 90 days of the entry of the order. This appeal followed.
4
¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 17 On appeal, the petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in granting the reimbursement
of maintenance payments as of June 8, 2018. We disagree.
¶ 18 Section 510(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act provides that,
“(c) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in a written agreement set forth
in the judgment or otherwise approved by the court, the obligation to pay future
maintenance is terminated upon the death of either party, or the remarriage of the
party receiving maintenance, or if the party receiving maintenance cohabits with
another person on a resident, continuing conjugal basis. An obligor’s obligation to
pay maintenance or unallocated maintenance terminates by operation of law on the
date the obligee remarries or the date the court finds cohabitation began. The
obligor is entitled to reimbursement for all maintenance paid from that date
forward. Any termination of an obligation for maintenance as a result of the death
of the obligor, however, shall be inapplicable to any right of the other party or such
other party’s designee to receive a death benefit under such insurance on the
obligor’s life. An obligee must advise the obligor of his or her intention to marry at
least 30 days before the remarriage, unless the decision is made within this time
period. In that event, he or she must notify the obligor within 72 hours of getting
married.” 750 ILCS 5/510 (West 2022).
¶ 19 When determining whether a party is engaged in a “resident, continuing conjugal”
relationship to terminate maintenance, the moving party must show that the recipient of
maintenance is in a de facto husband-wife relationship or “cohabitating with someone.” In re
Marriage of Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, ¶ 111. The moving party has the burden of
establishing that the party receiving maintenance is cohabiting with another. In re Marriage of
Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 40.
¶ 20 The determination of whether a relationship is a de facto marriage is a question of fact “as
no two relationships are alike, no two cases are alike.” Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 40.
Courts will consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a party is involved
in a de facto marriage and consider the following non-exhaustive list of factors: “(1) the length of
the relationship; (2) the amount of time the couple spends together; (3) the nature of activities
5
engaged in; (4) the interrelation of their personal affairs; (5) whether they vacation together; and
(6) whether they spend holidays together.” In re Marriage of Sunday, 354 Ill. App. 3d 184, 189
(2004). A circuit court’s decision to terminate maintenance based on the existence of a de facto
marriage will be upheld unless that ruling is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Miller,
2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 40.
¶ 21 In this case, the circuit court found that the petitioner and Lanham had more than an
intimate dating relationship, as they had “a deeper level of commitment and intended permanence.”
Evidence was presented that the petitioner entered into a dating relationship with Lanham in 2016
or 2017, and they are now engaged. Lanham would travel four or five nights of the week for work,
and he would stay with the petitioner for one or two days of the week when he was not travelling.
The petitioner and Lanham took vacations together throughout their relationship. They would also
spend holidays together, along with their families.
¶ 22 The petitioner benefited financially from her relationship with Lanham. Lanham had
purchased a $90,000 vehicle for the petitioner in 2018, and the vehicle was registered in both of
their names. The petitioner received health insurance through Lanham’s company since January
1, 2018, and the petitioner and children have been on Lanham’s family cell phone plan since 2017
or 2018. The petitioner and Lanham purchased property together on June 8, 2018, and both of their
names were listed on sales documents. The petitioner applied for a building permit on January 15,
2019, and her address was on the permit for both her and Lanham. They also opened a joint banking
account on March 1, 2019, together with their builder, and that account was primarily used for
construction of their new home. The petitioner, however, had access to the account and the ability
to write checks on the account. The account was also used to purchase a fishing boat, and the
petitioner used the account to write a $2000 check for her son.
6
We have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that it does not demonstrate that
the circuit court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The circuit court’s
determination that the petitioner had entered into a de facto marriage as of June 8, 2018, warranted
termination of maintenance and reimbursement of payments to the respondent.
¶ 23 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 24 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Madison County.
¶ 25 Affirmed.
7