Opinion
4-22-0905
08-29-2023
In re MARRIAGE OF LORI A. HARDY, Petitioner-Appellant, and JOHN C. HARDY JR., Respondent-Appellee
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County No. 11D462 Honorable Jack D. Davis II, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Zenoff and Lannerd concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
KNECHT JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: The trial court's order terminating maintenance is against the manifest weight of the evidence as it is clearly evident the ex-husband, who sought to end his maintenance obligation, failed to prove his ex-wife and her paramour were in a de facto marriage.
¶ 2 Respondent, John C. Hardy Jr., petitioned the trial court under section 510(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/510(c) (West 2020)) for the termination of maintenance payments to petitioner, Lori A. Hardy. Upon finding Lori was cohabiting with another on a resident, continuing, and conjugal basis, the court granted the motion. The court terminated maintenance as of the date of John's amended petition and ordered Lori to reimburse all maintenance payments made after January 2, 2021. Lori appeals, arguing (1) the court's determination she was in a de facto marriage as opposed to an intimate, dating relationship is against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) the court erroneously terminated maintenance payments as of the filing of John's petition, creating a $42,000 obligation to John. We agree with Lori's first argument and reverse.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 Lori and John married in May 1989. Two children, now adults, were born to the marriage. According to the factual background in a previous appeal, John had an engineering degree and worked in the aviation and aircraft-construction industry. In re Marriage of Hardy, 2013 IL App (4th) 130027-U, ¶ 8; see People v Eubanks, 283 Ill.App.3d 12, 24, 669 N.E.2d 678, 686 (1996) (noting a reviewing court may take judicial notice of court records). John was the primary breadwinner, who at that time earned $125,000 a year. Hardy, 2013 IL App (4th) 130027-U, ¶ 8. Lori, in contrast, had a general equivalency diploma (GED). During their 23-year marriage, she "maintained the household and was the primary caretaker of the children." Id. At some unspecified point, Lori began working part-time to care for a quadriplegic woman and clean houses, earning approximately $11,000 annually. Id. During the separation, which began in November 2008, Lori began working for cleaning services. Id. ¶ 11. She also started her own cleaning business, which had one employee, "Lori's boyfriend," Rob Ross. Id. We note that appeal refers to a "Rob Ross," while this appeal refers to a "Robin Ross." Given the facts and the timeline of the allegations, both appear to refer to the same person.
¶ 5 The parties divorced in December 2012. Dissolution proceedings resulted in an award of $2000 per month in "temporary rehabilitative maintenance." On appeal, this court, in part, modified the award of rehabilitative maintenance to permanent maintenance. Id. ¶ 4. This court did so after finding nothing in the record suggesting when the rehabilitative maintenance would end Lori would "be able to support her reasonable needs or have achieved a livelihood providing her anywhere near the standard of living enjoyed during the parties' 23-year marriage." Id. ¶ 56. We further found unrealistic the belief "a 47-year-old woman with a GED, who is a recovering substance-abuser with a host of medical problems and whose business is cleaning houses, will be able to achieve a decent standard of living without maintenance. Lori will have no marital assets available to her when maintenance ends." Id.
¶ 6 In the initial appeal from the order granting temporary maintenance, John asserted in a cross-appeal Lori should be barred from receiving maintenance as he submitted sufficient evidence to prove Lori cohabitated with Robin. Id. ¶ 28. The appeal shows Lori and Robin had dated "for approximately one year at the time of the hearings." Id. ¶ 15. These hearings began in July 2012. See id. ¶ 2. At that time, Robin lived in Rochester, Illinois, in a mobile home he had purchased two years before. This mobile home sat on land owned by Robin's father, Winn Ross. Robin often stayed with Lori. Ashley Hardy, a daughter of Lori and John's who was 20 years old at the time, testified between the time Lori met Robin and the day she moved out of the residence in May 2012, "Rob was at their home all the time." Id. ¶ 15. Both Robin and Lori testified he stayed less frequently. Id. According to Ashley, Robin did household chores, contributed to household expenses, and maintained clothing at Lori's residence. Id. ¶ 16. Robin and Lori traveled together and spent the holidays together. Id. Winn cosigned the loan for Lori's house, and Robin loaned Lori $4000 in May 2011, after John stopped paying maintenance, to purchase a refrigerator and pay attorney fees. Id. ¶ 17.
¶ 7 This court affirmed the trial court's decision finding the evidence insufficient "to demonstrate cohabitation on a residential, continuing conjugal basis." Id. ¶ 38. We found John failed to prove the trial court's order was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. We noted the evidence showing the parties resided together was inconclusive because there was testimony Robin stayed at Lori's residence occasionally, maintained his own home, paid taxes and electric bills on his home, and worked for Lori. Id. ¶¶ 34-35. The record contained testimony Robin and Lori went on one vacation together and spent holidays together, Robin kept clothes in Lori's closet, and Winn cosigned the loan for Lori; the other factors were "mixed or point to the opposite conclusion." Id. ¶¶ 36-37.
¶ 8 In a December 29, 2020, amended petition to terminate maintenance, John asserted Lori was cohabitating with Robin "on a resident continuing conjugal basis." In support of his petition, John asserted the evidence of cohabitation included posts on Facebook and the length of their relationship, which had lasted more than eight years.
¶ 9 A hearing was held on the petition in August 2022. Multiple witnesses, including a private detective, Robin, Lori, John, and two of Lori's neighbors testified at this hearing.
¶ 10 The first to testify was Gregory Muller, a private detective hired by John. Muller provided testimony regarding Facebook posts by Lori and Robin, as well as his observations while surveilling Lori's home. According to Muller, he was hired in late 2019 to determine whether Lori and Robin were cohabitating at Lori's home in Springfield, Illinois. Upon being hired, Muller initially examined Lori's and Robin's Facebook pages. The oldest Facebook post regarding the two of them was from February 14, 2011. The post was from the Bahamas. One post on Robin's Facebook page had a profile photograph of Robin, on which Lori commented, "my handsome man," with three heart emojis. A post from 2013 on Lori's Facebook account included an updated cover photo with a comment by Lori, "love my man." Multiple other photos of the two of them were updated as Lori's profile photo or cover photo. These included one in 2015 of the two of them at a winery and one that references an August 2011 "second date." On April 16, 2019, Lori updated her cover photo and stated, "8 years &still going strong. I Love you baby." Muller testified when he first looked at Facebook, both accounts indicated Robin and Lori were in a relationship with each other. At the time of his testimony, however, the relationship status had been removed from both pages.
¶ 11 Muller testified he found videos regarding Lori and Robin's relationship on YouTube. Robin had two YouTube channels to which he posted videos. In September 2019, Robin posted a video entitled "Payback's a Bitch." In that video, Lori is heard asking Robin a question. Muller believed the start of the video was recorded in Lori's backyard. In October 2019, Robin posted an instructional video on how to use a weapon. The video, about 20 minutes long, shows Lori throughout. This video was taken at Robin's mobile home in Rochester.
¶ 12 According to Muller, he then set up surveillance near Lori's residence. When driving past the residence on December 6, 2019, to determine where to set up surveillance, Muller saw Robin's vehicle in Lori's driveway. It was seen there at 1:54 p.m. and remained there as of at least 5:01 p.m. The next day, Muller placed recording equipment. When the equipment detected motion, video recorded. A video clip was then saved. Muller described to the trial court the photos that were captured and included in his report. When his testimony was not clear, information from the report that was entered into evidence supplemented Muller's testimony.
¶ 13 Muller testified, on December 7, 2019, Robin's truck was at Lori's house at 5:11 p.m. On December 8, video captured Lori moving Robin's truck and Lori's car leaving the driveway. Surveillance ended but then resumed on December 13, 2019. On December 13, Robin's truck was at the residence at 2:58 p.m. and at 4:13 p.m. On December 20, Robin pulled into the driveway and walked into the house using the back door at 11:39 a.m. He was not seen leaving that day. On December 21, Robin's truck is in the same location where it arrived the day before. At 9:52 a.m., Robin and Lori took her dog on a walk. At 10:15 a.m., Lori and Robin left in Robin's truck. They did not return until after 4 p.m. No motion showed the two returning on December 22. At 9:15 a.m. on December 23, Lori's car backed out of the driveway. Robin's truck was parked at the house. The two returned at 1:35 p.m. At 1:47 p.m., Robin backed out of the driveway in his truck. On December 24, Robin exited the back door of Lori's house and left in his truck at 1:30 p.m.
¶ 14 Muller testified, based on what was found during the surveillance in December 2019, it was decided he would set up more long-term surveillance, covering the period of April 30, 2020, through May 31, 2020. Muller used the same method of surveillance, but the surveillance occurred from a vacant business across the street from Lori's residence.
¶ 15 According to the surveillance video, on April 30, 2020, Robin's truck parked in the front of Lori's residence at 12:20 p.m. At 2 p.m., Robin exited the back door and left in his truck. Robin returned at 11:15 a.m. the next day. He parked near the back door and let himself in. Robin was carrying a hamper. At 11:38 a.m., Robin left. Muller could not see whether Robin left by himself. At 12:42 p.m., Robin and Lori returned in Robin's truck. Lori checked the mail. Robin parked the truck near the back door. The two took groceries from the back of the truck. Robin's truck was not observed leaving the rest of the day.
¶ 16 On May 2, at 10:11 a.m., Lori and Robin entered the truck and left together. At 2:41 p.m., the two returned. Robin carried what appeared to be a laundry basket into the house. On May 3, Robin's truck remained in the same spot. They were not seen leaving that day. On May 4, at 10:55 a.m., Robin left with the same laundry basket he took into the house. Lori was in the doorway. Robin did not return the rest of the day.
¶ 17 On May 5, at 9:05 a.m., Robin parked his truck in the front of the yard and walked to the back door. He let himself in. Twenty minutes later, the two left together in Lori's car. They returned at 11:38 a.m. One minute later, the two took Lori's dog for a walk. Neither Lori nor Robin was observed outside the rest of the day. On May 6, Robin's truck was observed at Lori's house all day. On May 7, at 10 a.m., Lori swept the back porch. Video did not capture the two leaving the residence, but the two returned in Robin's truck and unloaded groceries. On May 8, at 9:52 a.m., Robin left in his truck. At 12:51 p.m., Lori was photographed working in the yard. Robin did not return that day.
¶ 18 On May 9, at 3:05 p.m., Robin returned and parked in the driveway. On May 10, at 11:19 a.m., Robin left in his truck. Robin returned at 1:43 p.m. He picked up a "whirligig" that had fallen over in the yard. Lori held the door open for Robin. On May 11, at 10:39 a.m., Robin left while Lori was outside. "It [was] not known if Lori [left] with [Robin]. They [were] not observed returning for the rest of that date." On May 12, Robin returned at 3:04 p.m. He parked in front. He went "to the back door and appeared to let himself in." Robin's truck was not seen moving the rest of the day. From 6:30 a.m. until almost 6:30 p.m. on May 13, Robin and Lori were not seen leaving the house. "[Robin's] truck was not observed parked in the front yard from 6 a.m. to 6:29 p.m."
¶ 19 On May 14, at 2 a.m., "[Robin's] truck was still parked in the front yard[.] [A]t 1:18 p.m.[,] [Robin] was observed leaving in his truck. He was not observed returning on that date." On May 15, at 1:43 p.m., Robin returned and parked in the back. His truck remained there the rest of the day. On May 16, at 7 a.m., Robin's truck was seen in the same spot as the night before. At 10:01 a.m., Robin left. Lori might have been in the front seat of the truck with him. An hour and a half later, Robin, Lori, and Lori's dog returned. Robin parked near the front yard. At 6:21 p.m., Robin left. "It is not known when he returned."
¶ 20 At 6:27 a.m. on May 17, Robin's truck was observed parked in the back. He left at 1:26 p.m. but returned a short time later. On May 18, Robin's truck remained where it was parked the day before. Robin left at 10:10 that morning. He did not return until 9:25 a.m. the next day. That morning, at 8:50 a.m., Lori backed her car out of the garage. She checked the mail. After he arrived, Robin joined Lori in her car and the two left together. They returned at 11:40 a.m. Robin let himself in the house and carried items into the house. At 11:49 a.m., Robin left in his truck.
¶ 21 On May 20, Robin arrived at 9:21 a.m. He parked his truck in the front of the house. He entered the front passenger seat of Lori's car, which Lori had backed out of the garage about 10 minutes earlier. The two left in Lori's car. Approximately two hours later, they returned. Robin exited the car and opened the garage. Lori parked inside the garage. Robin let himself in the house. At 5:29 p.m., Robin was seen at the house. He took an item from his truck and entered Lori's house. At 5:34 p.m., he left the house, carrying several items from the house to the truck. He was not observed back at the house that day.
¶ 22 On May 21, at 1:54 p.m., Robin arrived and parked near the garage. He unloaded some items from his truck and left, "possibly with Lori in his truck." At 3:01 p.m., Lori and Robin returned. Lori exited the truck and checked the mail. Robin's truck remained parked in the same spot overnight. On May 22, at 9:24 a.m., Lori and Robin left in Robin's truck. They were not observed returning on that date.
¶ 23 On May 23, at 3:33 p.m., Robin returned and carried items into the house. His truck remained there until 11:24 a.m. on May 24, when Lori, Robin, and Lori's dog left in Robin's truck. They returned 14 minutes later and entered the house. No one was seen leaving the house the rest of the day. On May 25, at 9:24 a.m., Robin moved his truck and left with Lori in her car. They returned at 11:33 a.m. At 1:27 p.m., Robin left. He did not return the rest of the day.
¶ 24 On May 26, Lori checked the mail in the morning. At 9:15 a.m., Robin arrived. He parked in front of the house. The two left in Lori's car. At 11:33 a.m., they returned. At 12:17 p.m., Lori walked outside and parked her car in the garage. At 2:13 p.m., Lori and Robin left, returning at 2:52 p.m. On May 27, at 8:42 a.m., Robin and Lori left in Lori's car. They returned at 12:21 p.m. Robin left 10 minutes later and did not return that day. On May 28, Robin arrived after 9 a.m. The two left together. At 1:37 p.m., Robin and Lori were watering flowers at Lori's house. Six minutes later, Robin left. He did not return the rest of the day.
¶ 25 That ended the 29-day surveillance. Muller testified "maybe 16" of the 28 nights, Robin stayed overnight. He was at Lori's house at some point on all 29 days.
¶ 26 Muller testified to another period between July 23 and August 9, 2020, when surveillance was conducted of Lori's house. On July 23, surveillance began at 9:30 a.m. Robin's truck was in the driveway. At 4:53 p.m., Robin left. He returned about 10 minutes later. He parked his truck in the driveway and let himself in. He did not leave the rest of the day.
¶ 27 On July 24, at 8:44 a.m., Robin exited the house, moved his truck, and Lori left in her car. At 11:18 a.m., Robin left in his truck. Lori returned at 11:22 a.m. and mowed the grass. At 4:53 p.m., Robin returned. He parked his truck and entered the house. He seemed to be carrying a bag of food. Lori greeted him at the back door. Robin's truck did not move the rest of the night. Robin's truck did not move on July 25. A Marine Corps flag could be seen in the photos from that day. On July 26, at 9:30 a.m., Robin left. On July 27, Robin was not observed at Lori's house. On July 28, at 9:21 a.m., Robin arrived and parked in front of the house. The two left and returned at 1:27 p.m. Lori parked in the garage.
¶ 28 On July 29, at 9:02 a.m., Lori was seen walking her dog. At 9:17 a.m., Robin arrived, parked in front, and the two left in her car. At 8:39 p.m., Robin's truck remained parked in the same location as earlier. Lori and Robin were not seen outside the rest of the day. On July 30, at 8:25 a.m., Lori's car was seen parked outside the garage. Robin's truck was in front of the house. At 9:09 a.m., "Lori's car was observed backing out of the driveway possibly stopping at Robin's truck. His truck door can be seen open. Lori returned and pulled her car into the garage. Robin's truck was still parked out front at 11:27 a.m." The photo does not reveal whether Robin was in Lori's car. At 1:34 p.m., Robin left. He was not observed at the house the rest of the day.
¶ 29 On July 31, at 9:28 a.m., Robin arrived at Lori's house. They left in Lori's car and returned at noon. Robin exited the front passenger seat. He put up the garage door and let himself in while Lori parked in the garage. The two were not seen leaving the rest of the day. On August 1, Robin left in his truck at 10:03 a.m. At 3:04 p.m., he returned. On August 2, Robin left in his truck. He was not observed at the house the rest of the day. On August 3, no one was seen leaving the house. On August 4, Robin arrived at 8:29 a.m. He entered Lori's car and they left. At 8:38 a.m., the two returned. Robin let himself into the house while Lori parked in the garage. At 1:57 p.m., Robin left in his truck. He was not seen at the house the rest of the day.
¶ 30 On August 5, at 9:20 a.m., Robin arrived and left with Lori. They returned at 1:46 p.m. Robin exited the front passenger seat, opened the garage, and let himself in. Lori parked in the garage. At 1:51 p.m., Robin pulled his truck to the back of the house, took an item from the house, and left in his truck. At 2:35 p.m., he returned to the house and carried items into the house. His truck remained at the location until 6:01 p.m., when he left in his truck, and he did not return that day. On August 6, at 9:14 a.m., Robin arrived and the two left in Lori's car until 1:35 p.m., when they returned. Just before 7 p.m., Robin left and did not return that day. On August 7, Robin arrived at 2:13 p.m. He carried items into the house. He did not leave the rest of the day.
¶ 31 On August 8, at 9:43 a.m., Robin exited the house to take a laundry basket from his truck. He reentered the house at 9:47 a.m. and then left in his truck. At 3:36 p.m., he returned and carried items into the house, where he remained the rest of the day. On August 9, Robin left in his truck with a laundry basket and drove away. Surveillance ended. Muller believed Robin spent 50% of the surveilled overnights at Lori's house.
¶ 32 On cross-examination, Muller testified Robin had a mobile home on the same land on which Winn, his father, resided in rural Rochester. Muller did not surveil Robin's residence, as he was hired to determine if Robin was cohabitating with Lori at her house.
¶ 33 Norma Branner, who owned the dance studio from which Muller surveilled Lori's house, testified she knew Lori as they resided on the same street. Branner saw Robin regularly as he drove by her home. He would come and go "at different times," at times "stay[ing] overnight[,] but he comes and goes a lot." When asked if she had seen Robin and Lori in the neighborhood as a couple, Branner responded, "No, not really. Not lately." Robin "used to walk with [Lori] with the dog," but now she walked the dog herself. When asked if she "noticed any change in [Robin's] being there as frequently in the last year or so," Branner responded, "[m]aybe a little more." "[A]while back," Lori and Branner had a confrontation where police were called. Robin was not present at that time. In June 2022, after Robin learned about the camera in the dance studio, Robin began giving Branner the finger as he drove by her. There was also an incident just before she testified. Robin played a song on his phone, held the phone up to Branner, and told her, "[T]he Marines are some of the worst kinds and that's why people shouldn't f*** with them."
¶ 34 Robin, called by John to testify, testified he had known Lori approximately 10 years. They began dating in August 2011. The relationship was exclusive. Beginning in late 2012 or early 2013, Robin began working for Lori. She paid him in cash. Lori did not provide Robin with any Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documents. Robin rode with Lori to the places they cleaned. It took about two hours to clean a house, and they cleaned two a day. When Lori got paid, they stopped at her bank, PNC Bank; Robin also banked at PNC Bank. Lori deposited her money and gave Robin cash. After each job, they returned to Lori's house; sometimes Robin stayed over. Robin rode with Lori to pick up cleaning supplies and carried those items for Lori. Frequently, Robin would go with Lori to the grocery store. Robin spent most weekend nights at Lori's. He testified he rarely stayed midweek. Robin had access to Lori's house by using a key in her garage. Robin did not enter Lori's house without permission. He had not been given "blank permission" to enter her home. When Lori was present, she knew he was entering the house. When she was not at home, Robin entered only to feed her animals when she was away. He had not gone into her home without her present other than to feed her animals. Lori had gone to his home to take care of his animals. "[O]n that occasion," Lori used a key Robin had at his house.
¶ 35 Robin agreed he had been with Lori when she "had severe anxiety" and had calmed her. When asked if Lori looked to him to assist her during such incidents, Robin testified: "I would assume so since I'm there when she's having the panic attack. I'm not going to just stand and watch her flop around on the floor or anything." Robin and his friends installed a fence at Lori's home. When Lori suggested hanging a Marine Corps flag at her home, Robin thought it was a good idea, as it would discourage potential criminal behavior. Robin was a former Marine.
¶ 36 Robin and Lori walked her dog in the neighborhood. The two had been on a cruise together. He used credit-card points to pay for the tickets for the cruise. Lori paid for some of the trip. Robin denied exclusively paying for the 2012 trip. The two had been to some concerts together. They also heard bands at the Fire Fighters Club. The two went out to eat.
¶ 37 Robin testified, in addition to working for Lori, he was a drummer who worked in various bands. Lori rarely attended the performances of his bands. Lori occasionally cooked for Robin at her home. Robin would, on date nights, bring food and cook. When eating out, sometimes he paid and other times Lori paid. Robin, in making a video to demonstrate how to shoot guns, asked Lori to participate in the video. When Lori bought her house, Robin asked his father to cosign the loan. Robin made the arrangements for the cosigning to occur. When Robin's washing machine was broken, Robin did some laundry at Lori's house.
¶ 38 Robin admitted sitting with Lori, after the most recent proceedings began, to write a letter to Lori and John's adult daughters. In the letter, Lori told her daughters to call their father and offer him a choice to stop the lawsuit or else. Lori asked her daughters to threaten to cut off all ties with their father if he did not drop the lawsuit. The letter was sent from Lori's e-mail. When asked if he used Lori's address for mail, Robin testified he had had packages sent to her address, but he did not do that regularly. When asked if he received items at Lori's residence once a month, he said he believed it was less than once per month and when he wanted items not to be left out in inclement weather. He had done this for almost as long as he had known Lori.
¶ 39 On examination by Lori's counsel, Robin testified when he met Lori, divorce proceedings had not begun. Robin knew Lori's medical conditions but not "exactly all of the terms." Robin did not go with Lori to the doctor. He was not listed as Lori's emergency contact. Robin knew Lori took pain medication and believed it was Percocet but was not certain. As a result of Lori's health, Lori needed assistance carrying heavy items. She also needed assistance cleaning homes. To get to those homes, Robin went to Lori's house and rode with her. In his role, because Lori was not supposed to lift more than five pounds, Robin moved heavy items, such as vacuums and buckets of chemicals. Robin dusted and vacuumed. If they were paid $100, his share was $30. Robin was paid daily. They worked Tuesday through Friday.
¶ 40 Robin testified, since the 2012 cruise, they had not taken a vacation together. When asked if the two had gone to concerts together, he said they had in 2022, but not in 2020 or 2021. Robin played in a band at "gigs." The number of gigs were impacted by the pandemic. As of the time of his testimony, he had been playing in a band again. When asked where, Robin said, "[a]ll over the region." He listed two places by name, without stating the locations of those places.
¶ 41 Robin testified he lived on his family's farm in Rochester, Illinois. He had pets there: dogs, cats, and birds. He fed the opossums there, too. Robin did not share finances, other than occasionally going out to dinner, with Lori. Robin paid no utility bills for Lori. He did not pay her mortgage payment or car payment. He did not give her money: "I don't pay for anything other than date nights." When they went grocery shopping, Lori paid for her things. If Robin needed something, he paid for his items.
¶ 42 According to Robin, but for one family picnic five or six years before, he did not attend family events with Lori. Both of Lori's daughters resided in Georgia. Robin had not gone to Georgia to visit them with Lori. He did not attend Lori's daughters' weddings. When asked about the letter sent to the girls, Robin explained Lori "was pretty distraught and really unable to think clearly about what was happening." Robin was the one who suggested contacting the daughters to see if they could help.
¶ 43 Robin and Lori did not have a joint account. Robin did not use Lori's credit card. Robin had not paid any vet bills, auto-repair bills, or insurance bills for Lori. When asked about the key to Lori's residence, whether it was in a locked place or where anyone could find it, he said, "[a]nybody who knew where it was at would have access." He did not spend Easter, Independence Day, or Christmas with Lori. For a government holiday, if he did not have a gig, they might barbecue or get together. When asked about what gifts he had purchased Lori, Robin testified he bought her a pair of earrings about eight or nine years before for her birthday, maybe flowers for a birthday. He did not regularly walk Lori's dog with her. He had done so during the pandemic, a time when he spent more time at Lori's house. Because of the pandemic and Lori's fears due to the pandemic, they were "sheltering] in place." "[T]he only people we could be around were each other really." Lori did not go to Robin's house. Robin explained his home was "not conducive to females." His "kitchen table [was] a gunsmithing shop and [his] living room [was] a drum set."
¶ 44 On reexamination by John's counsel, Robin testified Lori had gone once that year to visit her grandchildren in Georgia. When the other daughter lived in Champaign earlier that same year, Lori visited her there. He believed before that year, Lori had gone to Georgia a couple of times each year. Lori did not ask him to go with her. He did not volunteer.
¶ 45 During the lockdown, Robin testified they stayed at Lori's house and did not go out. Robin believed the lockdown lasted "[n]early two years," only recently having been released from all restrictions. At the very beginning of the pandemic, the first three or four months, is when Robin spent extra time at Lori's. "[A]fter that things kind of settled down and we figured out we all weren't going to die." Robin began going home every day. Robin did not celebrate religious holidays. Lori discussed her medical problems, such as anxiety, bipolar depression, and lifting restrictions, with Robin. Lori took several medications. He saw the bottles in her medicine cabinet. Robin acknowledged saying he did not go to a concert with Lori in 2021, but he did recall attending one at Oakford Winery with Lori.
¶ 46 Rich Moscardelli, a neighbor of Lori's, testified he saw Lori outside "all the time." Lori walked her dog by herself. He had seen Lori walk her dog with Robin two or three times in the last 15 years.
¶ 47 On examination by John's counsel, Moscardelli, when asked if he was Lori's friend, testified, "Yeah. She's a neighbor." When asked if he was a friend of Robin's, he testified he had only seen him three or four times. Moscardelli retired from his job as a painter about six months before, a job where he worked six months on and six months off.
¶ 48 Lori, on examination by John's counsel, testified she lived at 2717 South Pasfield Street in Springfield, Illinois, a home she purchased in 2012. When she and John separated before the dissolution, Lori rented an apartment in Springfield. Winn, Robin's father, cosigned the loan with Lori. Lori went to his bank to do so. Winn was not on the title. A few years before, Winn arranged for Lori to refinance the loan so he would be removed from the loan.
¶ 49 According to Lori, she and Robin began dating in August 2011. They had been in an exclusive sexual relationship since then, breaking up a few short times. Lori believed those in her neighborhood knew they were a couple, as did her friends, family, and Robin's band. The two told each other they love each other.
¶ 50 The packages delivered to her home for Robin arrived mostly by UPS. When asked if they also arrived "by U.S. Mail," Lori testified, "No[,] usually FedEx." Lori had once gone to Robin's house to care for his animals. He had taken care of animals at her house. Robin had not walked with Lori "in a long, long time." She walked each day at 7 a.m., when Robin was not at her home. On Friday and Saturday mornings, Robin was at her house.
¶ 51 When asked if Robin stayed over midweek, Lori testified he did not, except during the pandemic. If she were afraid or needed assistance, Lori looked to Robin. Lori told him about her medical conditions. Robin lifted things she could not lift. They did not grocery shop together "all the time," only "once in awhile if [they were] in the car together and [Lori] decide[d] to stop at the grocery store." Usually, Lori stopped for groceries after work, when Robin was with her. Robin also went to Sam's Club with Lori because of the lifting required.
¶ 52 Lori agreed she and Robin had "kind of grown apart a little bit." She testified she did not know if it had anything to do with John's filing of the petition to modify maintenance. She acknowledged she testified at her June 2022 deposition their spending less time together "could" have something to do with John's petition.
¶ 53 Lori testified there was an incident when Robin defended Lori after a neighbor started a confrontation with Lori. Lori knew Robin was a Marine, as was her stepfather. Lori flew the flag, in part, as she lived in a rough neighborhood. Lori agreed she had gone to concerts with Robin at Sangamon State and at the Fire Fighters Club. When Robin was at her house, they cooked together. Robin had picked up food and brought it in. Lori would bring food home that she paid for and the two would eat it. Before the pandemic, they would go out to eat once a month or so, "if that." Sometimes Lori paid; sometimes Robin paid. Robin did not give Lori money for food when she went to the grocery store. Lori had a key in her garage. Robin could use it if he needed to get into her house. Robin let Lori know each time he would need to get into her house. He did not go there unless he had a reason.
¶ 54 Lori testified Robin had gone to her home to take care of her bird and dog. Robin and his friend Rick put up a fence for Lori nine years before. There were about two weeks where Robin did laundry at her house before he bought a new washer. When Robin stayed overnight, he brought his clothes in a basket. She believed he brought toiletries with him.
¶ 55 Lori testified she saw her daughter Lindsay about a month before. Lori's ex mother-in-law and Lori went to visit Lori's daughter Ashley in Urbana about a month earlier. She had gone to Georgia at least twice each year, where her daughters lived. Lori and her ex-mother-in-law were planning to go to Georgia the following month. Lori did not invite Robin to go with her. Lori did not recall if Robin was at her home for Christmas in 2019. When counsel said, "[t]hat's what the detective saw, his car at your residence," Lori said, "Okay." When asked if they celebrated that year, she said "we don't celebrate." They did not put up a tree or decorate.
¶ 56 Lori testified she cleaned two houses a day. It took two to two and a half hours to clean each house. The homeowner paid after each cleaning. Lori said she reported all of her income to the IRS, but she filed no documents for her pay to Robin. Lori thus paid the taxes on the money she gave to Robin. However, Lori's testimony revealed the only income she reported in 2021 was the maintenance she received from John, over $22,000. When she was paid $100 to clean a house, she gave Robin $35. If she made $150, she gave Robin $50. When paid $185, Robin was given $70. Of the $1875 she brought in every two weeks, Robin was given $685. When asked about bank statements, one statement, for the period of January 27, 2022, to February 23, 2022, shows a beginning balance of $12,857, and an ending balance of $12,629. The same statement indicates the average monthly balance was $12,541.97. The last statement provided to John, for the period of April 27, 2022, to May 25, 2022, shows an ending balance of $16,434.39. It also shows the average monthly balance had increased to $14,359.64.
¶ 57 On weekends, Robin arrived at her house on Friday and then stayed the night. He returned Saturday late afternoon and stayed the night. He would leave at some point on Sunday. She would not see him again until Tuesday. In the pandemic, he would sometimes stay during the week, but not after that.
¶ 58 On examination by her counsel, Lori testified she was 56 years old. Since she and Robin began dating in 2011 and 2012, the two had "grown apart a little bit." She was on pain management for degenerative disc disease and a torn ligament in her shoulder. Lori had two back surgeries. She took oxycodone three times a day for pain and medication for bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression. Lori suffered panic attacks daily. Lori could not clean houses without someone to help her physically, as she was restricted from lifting.
¶ 59 Regarding her tax filings, Lori did not report her business income, but she also did not report what she paid to Robin, gasoline expenses, depreciation of her vehicle, or materials costs.
¶ 60 Lori did not believe she was in a marital relationship with Robin. Robin did not provide any money to Lori, other than "work money." Regarding the performances of Robin's bands, Lori believed she had gone to see 6 performances in 11 years. They went to the movies only once, just in the last year. They did not go to any professional sporting events or museums. Robin and Lori did not exchange gifts, other than one pair of earrings she received from him. She had not bought him a gift. Historically, Lori stated she paid her taxes. Lori's mortgage payment was $175. Her real estate tax monthly payment was $84. Other than her PNC Bank account, Lori had no other accounts. She owed $9000 on her mortgage; her house was appraised at $41,000. Lori's car was paid off. Lori had no other assets. She paid $66 per month for health insurance.
¶ 61 Lori stated she wrote the aforementioned letter to her daughters in a panic and had apologized to her daughters. Lori and Robin did not travel together. They "just really work together" and, without him, Lori did not think she could do her job. Lori would have to hire someone to help her.
¶ 62 On reexamination by John, Lori admitted many of the numbers on her financial affidavit were incorrect, including the monthly amounts she claimed she paid in federal and state taxes and the $186 she paid for health insurance. While her financial affidavit shows Lori paid $1000 in real estate taxes, Lori testified $500 per month was correct.
¶ 63 John Hardy testified he resided in Staunton, Illinois, with his fiancee. John's gross income for 2020 was $180,742. Except for food, his fiancee did not contribute to household expenses. In August 2021, John did an Internet search for Robin's address. The White Pages website listed one of the addresses for Robin as Lori's.
¶ 64 In September 2022, the trial court granted John's motion to terminate maintenance. Factual findings by the court include the following: Robin and Lori, except for a few short breakups, had been in an exclusive and continuous conjugal relationship since 2011. Lori's testimony she and Robin had "grown apart" was not credible. Robin stayed most weekends and some weeknights at Lori's house consistently since 2012, the two shopped for groceries together, and they went to Sam's Club together. Lori operated a cleaning business, Robin helped her with that business, and the two were together almost every day. Lori paid Robin a portion of what she received for cleaning each house. Robin was not credible when he testified he sought permission each time he entered Lori's home. Robin's access to her home was "unfettered." A Marine Corps flag flew over the home. Lori and Robin presented themselves as a couple. Robin fed Lori's animals when she was unavailable, and he installed a fence at her home. Robin had "clothing, toiletries and food at Lori's address" and had "washed his clothes" there. Significantly, according to the court, "Robin *** had mail and parcels shipped to Lori's home since the time he began his relationship with Lori," and he identified his address as Lori's address.
¶ 65 The trial court further emphasized Robin had a trailer on his father's farm, concluding while the contents of that home showed the trailer is where he kept his personal items, the testimony established Robin did not eat meals in his kitchen or lounge in his living room. That Lori testified Robin spent less time at her home after John filed the petition to terminate maintenance and the two "changed their behavior of taking walks in the neighborhood" after learning of the surveillance were both "indicia and tantamount to an admission of her cohabitation with Robin." Lori's testimony the frequency of Robin's being at her home was due to their work relationship "flies in the face of the facts that Robin has unfettered access to her home, has sexual intercourse with Lori, goes grocery shopping with Lori[,] and stays the night at her house regularly."
¶ 66 The trial court concluded Lori looked to Robin as one would look to a spouse. Lori shared personal and confidential health information with Robin and shared what doctors told her about treating her conditions. Lori relied on Robin when afraid and looked to him in an emergency. Robin defended Lori during an altercation with a neighbor. Robin chose to author the letter to Lori's daughters, and Lori approved of Robin threatening her children to protect her maintenance payments. The letter, as well as Robin's threat to a witness before her testimony, clouded Lori's and Robin's credibility and suggested their relationship went "far beyond what they claim[ed] it is."
¶ 67 The trial court found Muller's testimony "strongly suggested" cohabitation. The court emphasized Lori's social media relationship status had changed from "in a relationship with Robin Ross" to a blank entry. The surveillance revealed "substantial evidence of Robin's presence" at Lori's home in December 2019. Over 29 days in May and June 2020, Robin was present 29 out of 29 of the days and stayed 16 of 28 nights. During July and August 2020, Robin stayed 9 of 18 nights. Supporting Muller's testimony was the testimony of Lori's neighbor Branner, who saw Robin "come and go frequently."
¶ 68 Based on these findings, the trial court found Lori and Robin were cohabiting on a resident, continuing conjugal basis. This, according to the court, had been the case since John filed his amended petition on December 29, 2020. The court ordered maintenance payments terminated effective as of that date. Given the disparity in the incomes of the two parties, the court granted Lori's motion for attorney fees. The court ordered Lori to reimburse John for the overpayment of maintenance that had occurred since January 1, 2021.
¶ 69 This appeal followed.
¶ 70 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 71 On appeal, Lori argues the trial court erred in (1) finding the existence of a de facto marriage necessary to terminate maintenance and (2) terminating maintenance as of the date of the filing of the petition to terminate maintenance, requiring her to reimburse John for almost two years of maintenance payments. In support of her first argument, Lori maintains the court erred by failing to give proper consideration to the fact Robin did not simply help Lori with her business but was a paid employee and that relationship resulted in their spending substantial amounts of time together. Lori further points to various findings by the court she argues were not based on evidence, such as the conclusion Robin does not eat or lounge in his home.
¶ 72 In contrast, John argues the trial court properly found Lori and Robin were in a de facto marriage. The two, according to John, had been in an exclusive conjugal relationship since August 2011. Both were committed to that relationship, expressing their love and commitment on social media and presenting themselves as a couple. John highlights the deceptive behavior of Lori who, after John filed the petition to terminate maintenance, changed her relationship status on her Facebook page and altered the time they spent together. John maintains the evidence is clear Lori and Robin had a long-standing committed relationship: they at times shared meals after work, cooked for each other, and shopped together. John further contends Lori and Robin operated the business together and shared the profits.
¶ 73 Maintenance enables "a spouse who is disadvantaged through marriage to enjoy a standard of living commensurate with that during the marriage." In re Marriage of Liszka, 2016 IL App (3d) 150238, ¶ 73, 77 N.E.3d 1000. The obligation to pay maintenance to a former spouse will be terminated, however, if one of the statutory provisions applies. One such provision is "the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance." 750 ILCS 5/510(c) (West 2020). Another provision allows termination of maintenance "if the party receiving maintenance cohabits with another person on a resident, continuing conjugal basis." Id. The latter provision "prevent[s] a spouse from achieving indirectly (by cohabitation on a resident, continuing conjugal basis), what could not be achieved directly (by remarriage)." In re Marriage of Frasco, 265 Ill.App.3d 171, 178, 638 N.E.2d 655, 660 (1994). Case law deems a relationship in which "the party receiving maintenance cohabits with another person on a resident, continuing conjugal basis" a de facto marriage. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Susan, 367 Ill.App.3d 926, 930, 856 N.E.2d 1167, 1171 (2006). The purpose of terminating maintenance based on the existence of a de facto marriage "is to remedy the inequity created when the recipient spouse becomes involved in a husband-wife relationship but does not formalize the relationship, so that he or she can continue to receive maintenance from his or her ex-spouse." In re Marriage of Sunday, 354 Ill.App.3d 184, 190, 820 N.E.2d 636, 641 (2004).
¶ 74 When a party seeks to terminate maintenance, that party bears the burden of proving "a de facto husband-and-wife relationship exists." In re Marriage of Herrin, 262 Ill.App.3d 573, 576, 634 N.E.2d 1168, 1170 (1994). If the petitioner meets that burden, the burden shifts to the recipient of maintenance to show he or she is not engaged in such a relationship. Id.
¶ 75 While there is no precise definition of a de facto marriage, case law shows "it is something beyond an 'intimate dating relationship.'" In re Marriage of Peterson, 2022 IL App (4th) 220129-U, ¶ 20 (quoting In re Marriage of Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 51). In the determination of whether a relationship is an "intimate dating relationship" or a de facto marriage, factors to be considered include "(1) the length of the relationship; (2) the amount of time spent together; (3) the nature of the activities engaged in; (4) the interrelation of personal affairs (including finances); (5) whether they vacation together; and (6) whether they spend holidays together." Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 40. We are mindful these factors are not a checklist, as "the circumstances of an intimate dating relationship are also likely to involve facts that fit into each of the six factors." Id. ¶ 46. Thus, courts "should 'weigh the seriousness or magnitude' of these factors, looking for 'signs of mutual commitment and permanence.'" Peterson, 2022 IL App (4th) 220129-U, ¶ 20 (quotingMiller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 50). Courts should not focus on the "emotional and social components" of the relationship, but should "also look to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the new relationship functions practically and economically in a marriage-like way and, if not, whether there is a reasonable explanation as to why it does not (such as each partner's having an individual abundance of resources or estate-planning goals)." Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 50.
¶ 76 The Second District in Miller, upon an examination of the case law, concluded the following when distinguishing an "intimate dating relationship" from a de facto marriage:
"Intimate dating relationships have companionship and exclusive intimacy, whereas marriage-like relationships, while likewise having companionship and exclusive intimacy (not necessarily sexual but such that the former spouse does not engage in a similar relationship with a third person), also have a deeper
level of commitment, intended permanence, and, unless reasonably explained, financial or material partnership (which would most commonly come in the form of a shared household)." (Emphasis added.) Id. ¶ 61.
Characteristics of permanence include
"planning to be together permanently and retiring with a new partner, designating the new partner as one's health care power of attorney, and naming her new partner as beneficiary over her will, rather than her children-and partnership, such as 'join[ing] forces to run a single household, coming[ling] funds and goods, and, at a minimum, look[ing] to one another for financial and material support.'" In re Marriage of Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, ¶ 160 (quoting Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 61).
¶ 77 "The standard of review of a support order is whether it is an abuse of discretion, or whether the factual predicate for the decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence." In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill.2d 489, 523, 819 N.E.2d 714, 733 (2004). As the Illinois Supreme Court explained, "if the court's exercise of discretion has an evidentiary basis, then the reviewing court will consider the manifest weight of the evidence." Id. at 524. Here, the trial court's exercise of discretion falls into that category. We, therefore, consider whether the court's determination Robin and Lori were in a de facto marriage is against the manifest weight of the evidence. "A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or where the finding is unreasonable, arbitrary, and not based on the evidence." In re Marriage of Sturm, 2012 IL App (4th) 110559, ¶ 3, 970 N.E.2d 117. We will not affirm the termination of maintenance when "the evidence supports finding only an intimate dating relationship and not a de facto marriage." Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 46.
¶ 78 We first address the parties' disagreement over whether consideration may be given "to whether the cohabitation has materially affected the recipient spouse's need for support." In re Marriage of Sappington, 106 Ill.2d 456, 467-68, 478 N.E.2d 376, 381 (1985) (quoting In re Marriage of Bramson, 83 Ill.App.3d 657, 663, 404 N.E.2d 469, 473 (1980)). Lori urges this court to take her need for maintenance into account. John counters this court has already rejected that proposition in Frasco, when we found "an analysis based on need appears nowhere in the statute and would not be an appropriate consideration were termination sought on the basis of *** remarriage or *** death" and, therefore, is not a proper consideration for a de facto marriage. Frasco, 265 Ill.App.3d at 178. Following Frasco, we agree we should consider "whether the receiving spouse has formed a new relationship wherein the partners look to each other for support, not whether the support provided is in fact adequate to meet the receiving spouse's needs." (Emphasis in original.) Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 55 (quoting In re Marriage of Weisbruch, 304 Ill.App.3d 99, 106, 710 N.E.2d 439, 444 (1999)).
¶ 79 While we do not consider Lori's need for support, we are mindful from the case law of the significance of financial entanglements to the determination of whether the "intended permanence" or commitment of a de facto marriage exists. For example, the case law reveals the presence of such entanglements supports a finding of a de facto marriage. In Weisbruch, 304 Ill.App.3d at 101-02, a de facto marriage was found when the ex-spouse and her partner cosigned loans for each other, co-owned "their respective cars," shared a joint bank account, and purchased a home together. In In re Marriage of Toole, 273 Ill.App.3d 607, 612, 653 N.E.2d 456, 460 (1995), the facts of shared meals, bank accounts, household chores, and credit accounts supported the finding of a de facto marriage. In Herrin, a de facto marriage was found based, in part, on the fact the ex-spouse loaned money to her partner and secured loans so the partner could purchase a computer and pay child support, and the partner used the ex-spouse's phone number for his business and "as much as 90% of the time" used her vehicle. Herrin, 262 Ill.App.3d at 577.
¶ 80 The absence of financial entanglements, in contrast, supports a determination of no "intended permanence" and, therefore, no de facto marriage. In Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, ¶¶ 150, 153, 187, for example, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding of no de facto marriage when, in part, the ex-spouse and her partner "completely and consistently maintained separate households and finances" and the two "could end their relationship and go their own way with virtually no effort whatsoever" as there were no financial obligations or commitments to untangle. Similarly, in Sunday, the appellate court reversed a finding of a de facto marriage when the uncontradicted evidence showed the ex-spouse and her partner "maintained separate households and separate finances," had not made the other a beneficiary of benefits or insurance, and had not "intertwine[d] their economic situations" by purchasing significant assets together or commingling their funds. Sunday, 354 Ill.App.3d at 192-93. In Miller, no de facto marriage existed when the parties shared a joint golf membership but otherwise did not commingle finances and did not share household duties. Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶¶ 62-63.
¶ 81 We note, however, the "permanence" described in Miller may be found even in the absence of financial entanglements if other evidence of such permanence exists. In In re Marriage of Walther, 2018 IL App (3d) 170289, ¶¶ 30, 33, 110 N.E.3d 221, the court found the maintenance recipient's and her partner's finances were not interrelated but concluded the two cohabitated on a resident, continuing basis. In that case, the personal affairs of the parties established permanence as the maintenance recipient's daughter shared a room with her partner's daughter, the maintenance recipient referred to her daughter and her partner's daughter as sisters, and the four acted as a family. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. We are also mindful "[n]o two cases in this area will be alike because no two personal relationships are alike." Sappington, 106 Ill.2d at 466.
¶ 82 Here, without considering Lori's need for support, we find no evidence the parties look to each other for financial support. There are no financial entanglements holding the relationship together. Robin does not pay rent or give Lori money for household expenses. Contrary to John's argument of a partnership in the cleaning business, the trial court made no such finding but instead referred to the business as Lori's. The failure of Lori to pay employment taxes for Robin does not establish otherwise as Lori failed to pay taxes for the business as a whole. While Lori testified she did not think she could work without Robin's assistance, her testimony further established Robin is an employee who could be replaced: "I'd have to hire somebody else to help me."
¶ 83 That Robin and Lori's relationship, one that was exclusive, romantic, and sexual, extended over 11 years does not establish a de facto marriage. The facts of Bates involve a relationship that lasted over 15 years and a plan "to get married some day," and those facts, which included the absence of financial entanglements, did not support the termination of maintenance. See Bates, 212 Ill.2d at 505. In Bates, the ex-wife, Norma, resided in a home owned by her airline pilot partner, Malik, and she paid him rent. Id. at 505-06. Malik had, on occasion, stayed with her overnight. Id. at 505. They maintained separate residences and did not vacation together. They did not keep personal belongings in the home of the other. Each was responsible for their own expenses and home maintenance. Id. Funds were not commingled. Id. The Illinois Supreme Court found "the trial court could rationally conclude that Norma and Malik enjoyed a dating relationship not akin to marriage." Id. at 524.
¶ 84 While there is a difference between the "occasional overnight" in Bates and the number of nights Robin spent at Lori's house, John did not meet his burden of showing Robin, in effect, resided there. Muller's surveillance of Lori's residence cannot be judged in a vacuum, as the bulk of that surveillance occurred during the unprecedented circumstances of the global COVID-19 pandemic. The prepandemic surveillance in December 2019 does not contradict the testimony of Robin and Lori that, other than during the pandemic, Robin stayed on weekends and occasionally during the week. The December 2019 surveillance covered 10 nonconsecutive days, mostly over the weekends. The days surveilled included three Fridays, two Saturdays, two Sundays, and the Monday through Wednesday spanning December 23 through Christmas. Notably, Robin was seen leaving Lori's house early afternoon on Christmas Eve and he did not return Christmas day.
¶ 85 The next round of surveillance started a little over one month after the start of the pandemic, from the last day of April through the month of May 2020, not over May and June 2020 as the trial court concluded, and then again in July and August 2020. It is commonly known during that time, the lives of everyone changed dramatically, leading most people to spend a much greater amount of time at home and to limit socializing. See generally People v. Henderson, 171 Ill.2d 124, 134, 662 N.E.2d 1287, 1293 (1996) ("It is well established that courts may take judicial notice of matters which are commonly known or, if not commonly known, are readily verifiable from sources of indisputable accuracy."). That Robin and Lori spent more time than every weekend night and occasional weeknights in this unprecedented time does not prove the two cohabitated. Both Robin and Lori testified the time they spent together increased during the pandemic and lessened afterward. Muller's surveillance supports this testimony, as the surveillance revealed fewer overnights as time passed from the start of the pandemic. During May 2020, for 16 of 28 nights, the two were together at Lori's house, and they spent at least part of all 29 days together, while the trial court found the later summer surveillance showed they shared 9 of 18 nights there. Muller's testimony further shows two days in that latter period where the two did not see each other at all.
¶ 86 Interestingly, the surveillance video contradicts the trial court's conclusion Robin's access to Lori's house was unfettered. While it is clear Lori and Robin gave the trial court many reasons to doubt their credibility and decency (the threat to the witness and the letter to the daughters), Muller's testimony and his report show Robin entered Lori's house only when Lori was present. The court's conclusion Robin's visits were "unannounced" has no basis in the record. No one testified Robin would simply show up, and the surveillance footage does not show Lori was unaware Robin was coming to her house. The photos and Muller's testimony clearly prove just one instance in the nearly two months of surveillance where Robin was in Lori's house alone: on July 24, 2020, when Lori left him there for approximately two and a half hours. There may have been two or three other instances, but the photos and surveillance leave open the question of whether Robin was in Lori's car with her when the car left the residence.
¶ 87 The surveillance further shows other circumstances supporting the conclusion Lori's house was hers alone. Muller's testimony regarding the surveillance and his report shows all mail collection at the house that was captured by video or photos was done by Lori. Lori was the only one to park in the garage. Lori was the only one captured mowing the lawn. There was just one instance of Robin helping for less than 10 minutes to water the flowers. Except for the occasional moving of a vehicle to a new parking spot outside Lori's house, neither Lori nor Robin were seen driving the other's car. In addition, as the uncontradicted evidence establishes, Robin did not have a key to Lori's house. Robin often arrived with items and left with items, and as the trial court observed, Robin kept personal items at his residence in Rochester. As for Rochester, there is no basis for the court's conclusion Robin did not eat or lounge at his trailer. Robin simply testified his kitchen table was covered with "gunsmithing" items and there was a drum set in his living room.
¶ 88 Moreover, the trial court's finding Robin received mail at Lori's house is unsupported by the record. Robin testified to, about once a month, receiving packages at Lori's house. There was no testimony letters, bills, or other mail arrived there for Robin. In addition, as stated above, the surveillance shows the only person who went to the mailbox at Lori's house was Lori.
¶ 89 We acknowledge the facts show the parties were in an intimate, romantic relationship. Robin knew of Lori's health issues. Robin acted to protect Lori in circumstances of health emergencies, the global pandemic, and a confrontation with a neighbor. Photos of their relationship were posted on Facebook, identifying themselves as a couple. Lori hung a Marine Corps flag on her home. However, it is clearly evident from the facts this relationship had not progressed to a deeper level of commitment or intended permanence. Since John's initial attempt to terminate maintenance was denied, other than the length of the relationship and the time spent together during the pandemic, the relationship between Robin and Lori remained the same. Except for one cruise in 2011, the two did not travel together, either on vacation or to visit family. Robin did not attend the weddings of Lori's daughters. He did not join her on her trips to Georgia to visit her daughters and grandchildren or on Lori's visits with her former in-laws. Other than one pair of earrings and "maybe" flowers for a birthday, gifts were not exchanged. Lori rarely went to watch Robin's bands perform.
¶ 90 Here, "the evidence clearly shows companionship and exclusive intimacy," but evidence proving "a deeper level of commitment, permanence, and financial or material partnership [is] absent *** such that [Robin's and Lori's relationship] cannot reasonably be elevated beyond an intimate dating relationship." Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 62. There is no testimony establishing the parties intend to marry. There were no financial or familial entanglements that prove commitment or intended permanence. The trial court's finding to the contrary is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We, therefore, reverse the termination of maintenance.
¶ 91 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 92 We reverse the trial court's termination of maintenance, order the return of any funds Lori reimbursed John, and reinstate the permanent maintenance award retroactive to the date of the trial court's order.
¶ 93 Reversed.