In re Marriage of Culm

2025 IL App (1st) 240566

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: March 4, 2025
• Docket: 1-24-0566
• Status: Published

Opinion

2025 IL App (1st) 240566 No. 1-24-0566 Opinion filed March 4, 2025 Second Division ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the GEOFFREY CULM, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. Petitioner-Appellant, ) ) and ) No. 16 D 1362 ) ALICE CULM, ) Honorable ) Renee G. Goldfarb, Respondent-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE VAN TINE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Howse and Ellis concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 Geoffrey Culm appeals the trial court’s denial of his amended petition to terminate

maintenance payments to his former wife, Alice Hawman. 1 Geoffrey contends that maintenance

should terminate because Alice was in a de facto marriage with Michael Kolander. For the

following reasons, we affirm.

¶2 I. BACKGROUND

1 At the time of trial, Alice used her maiden name, Hawman. Because several witnesses share last names, we will refer to most witnesses by their first names. No. 1-24-0566

¶3 Geoffrey and Alice were married in 1994 and had two sons together, both of whom are

now adults. In 2016, Geoffrey filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, citing irreconcilable

differences. The trial court entered a judgment of dissolution on March 30, 2017, which

incorporated a marital settlement agreement. The settlement agreement required Geoffrey to pay

maintenance to Alice for 15 years in the amount 25% of his annual income up to $500,000 per

year, i.e., $125,000 per year. The settlement agreement also provided that “Geoffrey’s obligation

to pay and Alice’s right to receive maintenance shall terminate upon *** Alice’s cohabitation with

another person on a resident, continuing conjugal basis (in which case maintenance shall terminate

on the date which a court of competent jurisdiction finds the cohabitation began).” 2

¶4 A. Amended Petition to Terminate Maintenance

¶5 In December 2021, Geoffrey filed the amended petition to terminate maintenance at issue

in this appeal. Geoffrey argued that maintenance should terminate because Alice was in a de facto

marriage with Michael Kolander. Specifically, Geoffrey contended that Alice and Michael (1) had

been in a relationship since 2014, (2) lived in the same residential complex, albeit in different

homes, (3) spent the night together approximately 66% of the time, (4) spent Thanksgiving

together in 2020, (5) presented themselves as a couple to their families, and (6) took actions

consistent with being in a committed relationship, such as helping each other with moving, caring

for each other’s pets, and engaging in public displays of affection.

¶6 Alice filed a motion to dismiss Geoffrey’s amended petition pursuant to section 2-615 of

the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2016)). Relevant here, Alice argued that

2 This language tracks section 510(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/510(c) (West 2016)), which governs termination of maintenance.

-2- No. 1-24-0566

the petition’s allegations did not support a claim that she and Michael were in a de facto marriage

primarily because the petition did not even allege that she and Michael lived together. Geoffrey’s

response requested that the court deny the motion to dismiss and allow discovery as to Alice and

Michael’s relationship. Geoffrey also argued that the court could find that Alice and Michael were

in a de facto marriage, even though they did not live together.

¶7 B. Trial

¶8 Geoffrey’s amended petition to terminate maintenance proceeded to a bench trial in

October and November 2023.

¶9 1. Alice Hawman

¶ 10 Alice testified that she and Geoffrey decided to end their marriage in 2013, separated in

2015, and divorced on March 30, 2017. Alice met Michael in 2012, when he was her personal

trainer. She began an intimate relationship with him in late 2014 or early 2015 and their

relationship became exclusive in 2016. In the fall of 2017, Alice broke off her relationship with

Michael because she believed he was seeing another woman, but she began dating him again in

2018. Thereafter, Alice and Michael’s relationship was “on and off”; they “went back and forth

from dating [to being] just friends.” Their sexual relationship ended in 2019 or 2020 (apart from

one sexual encounter in 2021), and their dating relationship ended in 2022.

¶ 11 At the time of the divorce, Alice lived in the former marital residence on Hawthorne Street

in Arlington Heights. In September 2018, Alice bought a residence in the Knollwood townhome

complex in Palatine as an investment property. Michael lived in the same townhome complex,

within walking distance of Alice’s property, but Alice did not buy the Knollwood property to live

near him. Alice renovated the Knollwood property between 2018 and 2020 and did not lease it

-3- No. 1-24-0566

during that time. Michael did not help with or pay for renovation work. 3 In late August or early

September 2020, Alice temporarily moved into her Knollwood townhome. Michael did not help

with that move beyond taking “one or two carloads over, over the course of months.” In late August

or early September 2021, Alice moved to West Dundee, Illinois. Michael helped with some of that

move but was not “in [Alice’s] plans” regarding her new home. Alice leased the Knollwood

residence to tenants in March 2022. She and Michael never discussed moving in together.

¶ 12 From late 2015 to March 2017, Alice and Michael saw each other for personal training “a

few times every week” and met for dinner or coffee “maybe one other time during the week.”

Throughout their relationship, Alice and Michael sometimes spent the night at each other’s homes,

but “never spent more than two consecutive nights together *** except for a few trips.” They

communicated by phone call or text message daily, by Facebook messenger at least once a week,

and occasionally by e-mail.

¶ 13 Alice and Michael cooked together at each other’s homes and dined out together. They also

socialized with at least three other couples. In 2015, Alice and Michael sold homemade Grateful

Dead merchandise at a concert and split the proceeds. Also in 2015, Alice took care of Michael’s

cats when he was splitting time between Illinois and Texas. Michael had access to Alice’s

Knollwood and West Dundee residences to let service people in and take care of her dog. Michael

cared for Alice when she had COVID-19, and Alice accompanied Michael to medical

appointments when he was unable to drive.

3 Michael did pay some of the contractors who performed renovation work when Alice was unable to, but she reimbursed him.

-4- No. 1-24-0566

¶ 14 Alice and Michael took several trips together. In March 2015, they traveled to Michael’s

sister’s home in Texas and went camping in a national park. In April 2015, they attended a wedding

in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. In May 2015, they traveled to Dallas, Tulsa, and St. Louis. In April

2016, they traveled to Kentucky for a concert. They traveled to Green Bay, Wisconsin, in

September 2015, December 2018, and October 2022. They also traveled to Madison and

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Peoria, Illinois. In February 2019, Alice and Michael spent the night

in St. Charles, Illinois, to see a concert. In December 2019, they traveled to Sheboygan, Wisconsin.

In February 2021, they traveled to Denver. They went to an art exhibit in downtown Chicago in

2021 and stayed at a downtown hotel on at least one occasion. In September 2022, Alice and

Michael traveled to Indiana and Kentucky to visit a museum and attend a concert and a bourbon

festival. On these trips, Alice and Michael stayed in the same accommodations and usually slept

in the same bed. They split travel expenses “50/50.”

¶ 15 Alice and Michael spent New Year’s Eve together in 2017 at a concert in Milwaukee. They

celebrated Thanksgiving together in 2020 due to being “in a small bubble” as a result of the

COVID-19 pandemic. They also exchanged Christmas gifts and Valentine’s Day cards. In 2022,

Michael gave Alice a bracelet for her birthday. Otherwise, they did not celebrate holidays or

birthdays together.

¶ 16 Alice and Michael had no joint bank accounts or credit cards, did not have access to each

other’s bank accounts or credit cards, and did not name each other as payable on death

beneficiaries. They never discussed each other’s income, taxes, or net worth and never made

budgets together. However, Alice acknowledged that they texted about financial issues on two

occasions. Michael had no financial involvement in any of Alice’s residences, and they were not

-5- No. 1-24-0566

cosigners or guarantors on each other’s loans or mortgages. Alice did not provide for Michael in

her will or other estate planning and did not give him power of attorney. Michael was not a

beneficiary on any of Alice’s retirement accounts or life insurance policies. Alice never named

Michael as an emergency contact, and he never accompanied her to medical appointments. They

did not receive mail at each other’s addresses. When Alice and Michael’s relationship ended, there

were no financial matters they had to resolve.

¶ 17 Alice and Michael transferred money to each other on 64 occasions between September

14, 2015, and October 3, 2022. Most of the transfers occurred via Zelle, but six were checks that

Alice wrote to Michael. The amount of each transfer ranged between $10 and $2300. In total, Alice

transferred $19,120 to Michael, and Michael transferred $8795 to Alice. These transfers included

payments for personal training sessions and short-term loans to each other, as well as

reimbursements for travel expenses, sales of Grateful Dead merchandise, groceries Michael bought

when Alice had COVID-19, comics and posters, a veterinary bill, and renovation work that

Michael paid for on Alice’s behalf when she was not home. Michael repaid every short-term loan

Alice provided.

¶ 18 Alice described Michael to her sons, Sean and Jared, and her sister, Cheryl, as her personal

trainer, a friend, and someone she was dating. Alice never told her sons that she thought “there

was a future with” Michael. Michael did not accompany Alice when she visited her sons at college,

and he did not attend their graduations. Michael met Alice’s mother twice and her father once;

Alice described Michael to her father as a friend. Michael did not accompany Alice on a trip to

Arizona to visit her father in 2021 or on trips Alice took with her sons. Alice did not invite Michael

to her sister Andrea’s wedding.

-6- No. 1-24-0566

¶ 19 2. Michael Kolander

¶ 20 Michael testified that he met Alice in 2010 or 2011, when he began working as her personal

trainer. They started dating in 2014, but their relationship was never more serious than “boyfriend,

girlfriend[ ] or friends.” Michael and Alice were in an exclusive relationship “[o]ff and on”

between 2017 and 2022. During that time, Michael dated at least three other women. After March

2020, Michael and Alice had sex three times at most. In October 2022, their romantic relationship

ended, and they decided to “just be friends.” Michael and Alice never discussed moving in

together, engagement, or marriage.

¶ 21 Michael and Alice spent nights together during their relationship, although Michael could

not recall how often. When they both lived in the Knollwood townhome complex, they sometimes

spent more than one night per week together, and they continued spending nights together after

Alice moved to West Dundee. Alice never moved her belongings into Michael’s home. She had a

key and the garage code to Michael’s home at Knollwood to feed his cats and bring in his mail

when he was out of town. Michael had access to Alice’s Knollwood home to let service people in

and walk her dog. Michael did not do laundry at Alice’s house.

¶ 22 Michael and Alice dined out and attended concerts and sporting events together; they either

split the cost of doing so or took turns paying. They also cooked together at each other’s homes.

Michael and Alice socialized with another couple named Mark and Mary two or three times, and

a couple named Dan and Jen once. Michael and Alice were never invited to parties as a couple.

They never went out with Alice’s best friend and did not attend any work events together.

-7- No. 1-24-0566

¶ 23 Michael testified consistently with Alice regarding their trips together. He added that Alice

was not invited to his friend’s wedding they attended together, and only Michael gave a gift to the

bride and groom. Michael and Alice never traveled with each other’s family members.

¶ 24 Michael also testified consistently with Alice regarding their transfers of money to each

other. Michael and Alice had no financial accounts together and did not have access to each other’s

bank accounts or credit cards. They did not pay each other’s utility bills, credit card bills, insurance

premiums, or car payments. They never discussed their net worth, life insurance policies, or estate

planning and never met with a financial planner together. They had no joint debts and never paid

each other’s mortgages. Michael did not add Alice to his homeowner or car insurance policies.

Alice was not involved with Michael’s personal training business. Michael did not name Alice as

a beneficiary on any of his bank accounts or investments. Michael and Alice did not receive mail

at each other’s homes. Michael listed Alice as his emergency contact when he was hospitalized in

2015 or 2016 but later removed her name. She dropped him off or picked him up for surgery.

¶ 25 Michael and Alice celebrated Thanksgiving together one time because it was a “Covid

holiday.” They also celebrated New Year’s Eve, Valentine’s Day “when [they] were together as a

couple,” dined out on Christmas Eve, and exchanged Christmas gifts. They did not send joint

Christmas or birthday cards. Alice spent Easters with her family; Michael was not invited to and

did not attend those celebrations.

¶ 26 On one occasion, Michael and Alice ordered appliances together because they received a

discount for doing so, but the appliances were delivered to separate addressees, and Michael and

Alice paid for them separately. The invoice for the appliances was addressed to “Mike slash Alice

Kolander.”

-8- No. 1-24-0566

¶ 27 Michael met Alice’s father and stepmother one time but never traveled with Alice to visit

her father. He met Alice’s mother “[a]t most a handful” of times. Michael also had dinner at the

home of Alice’s sister and her husband on one occasion. Michael knew Alice’s sons but did not

accompany her when she visited them at college, did not help with their moves to or from college,

and did not attend their graduations. Michael did not go to Alice’s sister’s wedding. Alice met

Michael’s sister in Texas.

¶ 28 3. Geoffrey Culm

¶ 29 Geoffrey testified that he saw Michael at Alice’s home twice between 2015 and March

2017. He did not see Michael at Alice’s home when he dropped off and picked up Jared for

parenting time exchanges between March 2017 and September 2018. In July 2020, Geoffrey hired

a private investigator who went by the name Robert Arden, but whose legal name is Bing Avitz,

to surveil Alice at the Knollwood townhome complex. In September 2020, Arden reported that he

saw Michael kissing a woman who was not Alice, and that Michael was “two timing [Geoffrey’s]

ex,” i.e., Alice. Arden also investigated Alice and Michael’s Facebook profiles and found nothing

to suggest they held themselves out as a couple.

¶ 30 4. Robert Arden

¶ 31 Robert Arden testified via evidence deposition, by agreement of the parties, due to his

unavailability at the time of trial. Arden was a retired private investigator. At the time of his

deposition, he was on probation for placing a surveillance device on a car.

¶ 32 Arden initially testified that he began surveilling Alice in November 2020 but later testified

that his surveillance began in July 2020. He attempted to observe Alice and Michael early in the

morning and late at night. Arden saw Alice and Michael “leave from each other’s house in the

-9- No. 1-24-0566

early morning on 20 out of the 30 observed days.” However, he did not conduct overnight

surveillance, so he could not say with certainty whether Alice and Michael were together overnight

at any time. Arden also did not conduct surveillance on holidays and did not know anything about

Alice’s out-of-state travels. Arden conducted a background check that indicated Alice and Michael

did not share real estate or vehicles. Arden saw Michael kissing another woman on two occasions.

¶ 33 5. Sean Culm

¶ 34 Sean Culm is Geoffrey and Alice’s son. He was 27 years old at the time of trial. Sean knew

Michael as “what [his] mother described as a kind of on again, off again relationship.” Michael

did not attend Sean’s college graduation. After college, Sean lived with Alice for approximately

one month in the summer of 2019. Michael did not live or spend the night at Alice’s home during

that time. When Sean moved to Minnesota, Michael did not help him move. Thereafter, Sean

visited Alice every three or four months. He never saw Michael’s belongings at Alice’s home.

Sean visited Alice at her home in Arlington Heights between 2018 and 2020 and never encountered

Michael there; Michael did not live at that residence. When Alice told Sean that she planned to

buy the Knollwood residence, she did not say she was moving there because of Michael. Sean

stayed with Alice at the Knollwood residence for two nights in October 2020; he did not see

Michael during that trip and did not see any of his personal effects at Alice’s house. Sean also

spent a long weekend with his mother at the Knollwood residence in May 2021; he did not see

Michael during that trip either. At the time of trial, Alice lived in West Dundee, and Sean visited

her there approximately every two to four months. Sean never encountered Michael at that

residence and never saw his personal effects there.

- 10 - No. 1-24-0566

¶ 35 Sean took several trips with Alice between February 2017 and June 2023; Michael did not

accompany Alice on those trips or pay for them. During a trip in February 2021, Sean asked Alice

if she planned to marry Michael, and “[s]he said she didn’t plan on it. She didn’t see it. They ha[d]

a great, you know, friendship at times and sometimes a relationship, but she didn’t see it coming

to marriage.” Sean and Alice often discussed buying rental properties and “flipping” houses in

several locations across the country. Alice never expressed hesitation about those plans because of

Michael.

¶ 36 Michael briefly stopped by during a Christmas celebration in 2020. His name was not

included on birthday or Christmas cards that Alice sent Sean. Michael did not attend family

gatherings or holiday celebrations with Alice. Sean communicated with Michael via text message

one time to thank him for a used bicycle Michael gave him.

¶ 37 6. Jared Culm

¶ 38 Jared Culm is Geoffrey and Alice’s younger son; Sean is his brother. Jared lived with Alice

when he was in high school from 2014 to 2018. Michael did not live with Jared and Alice during

that time. Jared knew Michael as a personal trainer and met him “a few times” in brief exchanges,

beginning in 2017 or 2018. Michael did not attend Jared’s high school graduation or help him

move to college in Milwaukee. When Alice moved to the Knollwood residence, she did not say

she was moving there because of Michael. When Jared stayed at Alice’s Knollwood residence

during college breaks, he did not interact with Michael. Michael did not accompany Alice when

she visited Jared at college and did not attend Jared’s college graduation. When Jared graduated

from college and moved off-campus, Michael did not help with or pay for his move. Jared last

interacted with Michael in the winter of 2020.

- 11 - No. 1-24-0566

¶ 39 Michael did not attend family holiday gatherings, except for one occasion in 2020; he

stopped by a Christmas celebration for 30 minutes to an hour. Michael’s name was not included

on birthday and holiday cards that Alice sent Jared, and Jared did not exchange Christmas gifts

with Michael. Jared did not have Michael’s cell phone number and never texted with him.

¶ 40 7. Cheryl Chan

¶ 41 Cheryl Chan is Alice’s sister. Cheryl met Michael one time when she attended a personal

training session with Alice and a second time when Michael and Alice came to dinner at Cheryl

and her husband’s house in 2020. Alice introduced Michael as her friend, not her boyfriend. Alice

never expressed intent to marry Michael or be in a long-term relationship with him. Michael did

not attend family gatherings with Alice. When Cheryl and Alice’s father was in the hospital,

Michael did not accompany Alice to visit him. Michael’s name was not on birthday cards that

Alice sent Cheryl.

¶ 42 8. Eric Hawman

¶ 43 Eric Hawman is Alice’s father; he lives in Arizona. When Alice visited Eric in Arizona in

February 2021, they did not discuss Michael. Eric met Michael one time for approximately an hour

in April 2021 at Alice’s home. Alice introduced Michael as her friend, and they did not exchange

any signs of physical affection. When Eric was hospitalized in August 2023, Alice visited him in

the hospital; Michael did not accompany her.

¶ 44 C. The Trial Court’s Ruling

¶ 45 On February 13, 2024, the trial court denied Geoffrey’s amended petition to terminate

maintenance, finding that Alice and Michael’s relationship was not a de facto marriage.

Specifically, the court found that Alice and Michael (1) had a lengthy and romantic but non-

- 12 - No. 1-24-0566

monogamous relationship, (2) maintained separate households and finances, (3) took short trips

together but split travel expenses, (4) did not present themselves to others as a permanent, mutually

committed couple, and (5) did not include each other in long-term future planning. In addition, the

court found that (1) Alice testified credibly regarding the transfers of money between her and

Michael, (2) Sean, Jared, and Eric were credible, and (3) Arden’s reports documenting his

surveillance, on which he relied during his evidence deposition, were “less than credible.”

¶ 46 Geoffrey timely appealed.

¶ 47 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 48 On appeal, Geoffrey contends that the trial court should have granted his amended petition

to terminate maintenance because the evidence established that Alice and Michael were “in a long-

term conjugal relationship.”

¶ 49 The Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) allows divorcing spouses to

enter into an agreement regarding maintenance payments, as the parties did in this case. See 750

ILCS 5/502(a) (West 2016). Under the Act, an obligation to pay maintenance terminates “if the

party receiving maintenance cohabits with another person on a resident, continuing conjugal

basis.” Id. § 510(c). The purpose of this provision “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, 189 (2004).

¶ 50 When a party seeks to terminate maintenance, based on the recipient being in a “resident

continuing conjugal” relationship, the moving party must show that the recipient is in a de facto

marriage with a third party. In re Marriage of Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, ¶ 111. If the

- 13 - No. 1-24-0566

moving party meets that burden, then the nonmoving party must show that he or she is not in such

a relationship. Id.

¶ 51 In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a petition to terminate maintenance, based on an

alleged de facto marriage, we will reverse trial court’s ruling only if it is against the manifest

weight of the evidence. Id. ¶ 105. “A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the

opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on

the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

¶ 52 A. Section 510(c) Analysis

¶ 53 This court’s approach to the section 510(c) analysis has changed over time. Earlier

decisions focused on whether the petitioner met the express requirements of section 510(c), i.e.,

whether the petitioner showed that his or her former spouse’s relationship with a third party was

cohabiting, resident, continuing, and conjugal. Id. ¶ 116. For example, in In re Marriage of

Johnson, 215 Ill. App. 3d 174, 180-82 (1991), we reversed the trial court’s termination of

maintenance because the ex-wife occasionally staying at her boyfriend’s apartment did not make

her a resident. Recent decisions have moved away from this strict application of section 510(c)

and toward a more flexible analysis of whether the relationship at issue is “husband-and-wife-

like.” In re Marriage of Larsen, 2023 IL App (1st) 230212, ¶ 114. We will conduct that analysis

below. Nevertheless, the statute still requires proof of cohabitation on a resident, continuing, and

conjugal basis. 750 ILCS 5/510(c) (West 2016).

¶ 54 In this case, there is no dispute that Alice and Michael never lived together and never

planned on doing so. Therefore, there is no basis for finding that Alice and Michael cohabited

within the common meaning of that term, which is “living or dwelling together.” See In re

- 14 - No. 1-24-0566

Marriage of Sappington, 106 Ill. 2d 456, 464 (1985). Because Alice and Michael never cohabited,

it is difficult to see how termination of maintenance under section 510(c) could be warranted. See

In re Marriage of Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 64 (“the absence of a shared residence and

of shared housing resources, or, at least, a shared day-to-day existence, is a significant hurdle for

a petitioner to overcome”).

¶ 55 We acknowledge that some cases suggest that a couple can be de facto married without

living together. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Susan, 367 Ill. App. 3d 926, 927-30 (2006) (couple

did not live together but spent “nearly every night together” for at least three years and had

essentially unlimited access to each other’s homes); In re Marriage of Herrin, 262 Ill. App. 3d

573, 575 (1994) (ex-wife’s boyfriend slept at his own residence—which had no gas, heat, or hot

water—to avoid becoming a resident at the ex-wife’s home, thereby ending her maintenance

payments). However, those cases are exceptions to the general rule that when two people have

never lived together, they are not de facto married. Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, ¶ 64.

¶ 56 In his reply brief, Geoffrey argues that cohabitation is often “impossible to prove” because

it takes place behind closed doors, citing Crane v. People, 168 Ill. 395, 396 (1897). Crane is a 128-

year-old case involving the then-crime of “living together in an open state of adultery” (id. at 396),

which has nothing to do with the section 510(c) analysis. That citation is unpersuasive, to put it

mildly. Under modern cases such as Sappington, cohabitation is a fairly straightforward inquiry:

does the couple at issue live together? In this case, that question has a straightforward answer: No.

The fact that Alice and Michael never lived together is not dispositive of this case, but it is

compelling evidence that section 501(c) does not apply.

- 15 - No. 1-24-0566

¶ 57 B. Herrin Factors

¶ 58 As mentioned above, more recent decisions have explained that whether a de facto

marriage exists is a fact-specific determination, based on the totality of the circumstances, and the

ultimate question is whether the couple at issue has a “husband-and-wife-like” relationship. Edson,

2023 IL App (1st) 230236, ¶ 117. Courts consider six nonexhaustive factors to help determine

whether a de facto marriage exists, including (1) the relationship’s length, (2) the amount of time

the couple spends together, (3) the nature of the activities they engage in, (4) the interrelation of

their personal affairs, (5) their vacations together, and (6) whether they spend holidays together.

Id. ¶ 112. Courts refer to these six factors as the “Herrin factors” because they originate from In re

Marriage of Herrin, 262 Ill. App. 3d 573 (1994). Our supreme court has not adopted the Herrin

factors (Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, ¶ 113), but it has not rejected them either.

¶ 59 Although the Herrin factors are helpful to the de facto marriage analysis, “courts should

not take a checklist approach wherein they merely note the presence of certain facts that fit into

each category.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, ¶ 118.

Rather, courts must consider that “many of the six factors can be present in an intimate dating

relationship as well as a de facto marriage.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. This distinction

matters because an intimate dating relationship does not necessarily equate to a de facto marriage

that warrants termination of maintenance. Id. ¶ 115. That is because

“[i]ntimate 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

- 16 - No. 1-24-0566

permanence, and, unless reasonably explained, financial or material partnership (which

would most commonly come in the form of a shared household).” (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) Id. ¶ 114.

We now apply the Herrin factors to the facts of this case.

¶ 60 1. Length of the Relationship

¶ 61 Case law suggests that the first Herrin factor, the length of the relationship, sets a somewhat

low bar for finding a de facto marriage. Courts have found de facto marriages based on relatively

short and inconsistent relationships. See, e.g., id. ¶ 125 (four and a half-year relationship partly

suggested a de facto marriage even though it included a four to six month separation); In re

Marriage of Walther, 2018 IL App (3d) 170289, ¶ 27 (a two-year relationship that included only

11 months of exclusivity gave the appearance of a de facto marriage).

¶ 62 Alice and Michael’s intimate relationship began in late 2014 or early 2015 and ended in

2022. Measured by start and end dates, the relationship lasted seven to eight years. However, Alice

and Michael’s relationship was not consistent. They stopped dating in 2017 and did not resume

their intimate relationship until the following year. From that point to the end of the intimate

relationship in 2022, they were not exclusive, at least from Michael’s point of view. He dated at

least three other women during his and Alice’s off-and-on relationship. Arden confirmed that

Michael was dating at least one other woman in September 2020. Alice and Michael’s sexual

relationship essentially ended in 2020. So, Alice and Michael were in an intimate and exclusive

relationship for just two years, late 2014 or early 2015 to early 2017. Given the case law above,

this factor weighs slightly in favor of a de facto marriage, considering the relationship’s

inconsistent and non-monogamous nature.

- 17 - No. 1-24-0566

¶ 63 2. Amount of Time Spent Together

¶ 64 The second Herrin factor examines the amount of time the couple spent together. A couple

spending nearly every day and night together supports a finding of a de facto marriage. See, e.g.,

Walther, 2018 IL App (3d) 170289, ¶ 28; Susan, 367 Ill. App. 3d at 930; Herrin, 262 Ill. App. 3d

at 577. By contrast, a de facto marriage may not exist when the couple spends time together only

on weekends and does not have “a day-to-day life together.” Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236,

¶ 132.

¶ 65 Alice testified that she and Michael “never spent more than two consecutive nights

together,” aside from a few trips. In the first half of their relationship, they saw each other for

personal training a few times a week and for coffee or dinner one other time during the week.

Michael testified that he and Alice sometimes spent more than one night per week together after

she moved to Knollwood. Alice and Michael sometimes had coffee together in the morning and

sometimes engaged in dating-like activities. Sean and Jared’s testimony indicates that Michael was

rarely at Alice’s home when her sons lived with her. Arden saw Alice and Michael together 20 out

of 30 days when they both lived at Knollwood. Based on the trial record, our best estimate is that

Alice and Michael saw each other approximately one to four times a week over the course of their

relationship. There is no indication they regularly spent every day or night together at any point in

their relationship.

¶ 66 Geoffrey argues that Alice and Michael “shared a day-to-day existence” because they spent

approximately 66% of their days together when they both lived at Knollwood. We disagree.

Spending two out of every three days together is, by definition, not a “day-to-day existence.”

Moreover, Alice and Michael both lived at Knollwood for one year, September 2020 to September

- 18 - No. 1-24-0566

2021. A couple spending approximately 66% of their days together for just one year, due in part

to the convenience of living near each other, is not like a marriage, in which a couple spends almost

every day together for many years, if not decades. Rather, it is more like a dating relationship.

¶ 67 Geoffrey also highlights that Alice and Michael communicated every day by text message

or phone call. That is true, but this Herrin factor concerns how much time the couple spent together

(see id. ¶¶ 126-33), not how much time they spent texting or calling each other. While daily phone

communication is evidence that Alice and Michael had a close relationship, it is not compelling

evidence of a de facto marriage. Nonromantic relationships often involve daily communication by

phone, especially texting. Geoffrey cites no authority suggesting that frequent texting outweighs

evidence that a couple’s relationship never involved spending every day with each other.

Accordingly, this factor weighs against a de facto marriage.

¶ 68 3. Activities

¶ 69 The third Herrin factor concerns the couple’s joint activities. “[S]ocializing and eating

together either in the home or in public [are] characteristic of de facto marriages.” Id. ¶ 139.

“[D]ating activities”—such as dinners, movies, and drinks together—also support a finding of a

de facto marriage. In re Marriage of Snow, 322 Ill. App. 3d 953, 956 (2001). “We have also found

evidence of a de facto marriage where the record demonstrates shared household chores, ranging

from laundry to cooking to maintenance work.” Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, ¶ 140.

¶ 70 The evidence indicates that Alice and Michael’s social activities together (aside from

traveling, which we address below) were limited. They had dinner or coffee together

approximately once a week, occasionally cooked together, and socialized with other couples

- 19 - No. 1-24-0566

perhaps four times in total. They sometimes attended concerts and sporting events, but they did

not attend parties or work functions together.

¶ 71 Moreover, there is little evidence that Alice and Michael shared household chores. Michael

did not help with renovation work at Alice’s Knollwood residence, provided minimal assistance

during her moves, and did not do laundry at her home. The closest thing to a household chore that

Alice and Michael shared was occasionally taking care of each other’s pets at their separate

residences. That task is something platonic friends might do for each other, not something that a

married couple would do. A married couple would have the same pets in the same residence, which

Alice and Michael never did.

¶ 72 Geoffrey insists that Alice and Michael’s activities together were “[j]ust like a husband and

wife.” This conclusory statement is based on a regurgitation of the trial testimony, without analysis

or explanation. Accordingly, this factor weighs against a de facto marriage.

¶ 73 4. Interrelation of Personal Affairs

¶ 74 The fourth Herrin factor “evaluates not whether the new de facto spouse financially

supports the recipient but, rather, whether their personal affairs, including financial matters, are

comingled as those of a married couple would typically be.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

Id. ¶ 154.

¶ 75 a. Finances

¶ 76 Important to the interrelationship analysis is the couple’s financial relationship and whether

it reflects the economic aspects of marriage. Id. ¶ 156; Larsen, 2023 IL App (1st) 230212, ¶ 154.

A couple not sharing bank accounts or credit cards and not comingling funds suggests that a

de facto marriage does not exist. See Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, ¶ 152; In re Marriage of

- 20 - No. 1-24-0566

Caradonna, 197 Ill. App. 3d 155, 160 (1990). Not sharing real estate or personal property also

supports a finding of no de facto marriage. See In re Marriage of Lambdin, 245 Ill. App. 3d 797,

804 (1993).

¶ 77 Alice and Michael had no financial interrelationship beyond occasional transfers of

relatively small amounts of money to each other. They had no joint bank accounts or credit cards,

did not have access to each other’s bank accounts or credit cards, did not take out loans together,

did not pay each other’s bills, and were not named on each other’s insurance policies. When Alice

and Michael’s intimate relationship ended, it had no effect on their respective financial affairs, and

they did not have to do anything to decouple their finances from each other. That fact contrasts

starkly with the end of a marriage, in which sorting out financial affairs is often complex.

¶ 78 Geoffrey argued that Alice and Michael “regularly transferred” money to each other. He

also argued that they looked to each other for financial support in the form of “loans” and covering

each other’s expenses. See In re Marriage of Weisbruch, 304 Ill. App. 3d 99, 106 (1999). While

that is true, 64 transfers over 7 years averages to approximately 9 transfers per year, which is

neither frequent nor regular. Practically speaking, Alice and Michael’s exchanges of money were

not like a husband and wife’s finances. They were more like a dating couple or nonromantic friends

repaying small expenses through digital applications like Zelle or Venmo. Indeed, the fact that

Geoffrey and Alice had to Zelle each other money, rather than drawing money from a joint bank

account, speaks to the complete separation of their finances. And the fact that they repaid all the

small “loans” to each other suggests an effort to keep their finances separate, which is the opposite

of what a married couple would do. Simply put, married couples typically do not lend each other

money.

- 21 - No. 1-24-0566

¶ 79 Geoffrey also claims that Alice and Michael “had a business together,” in which they

“illegally manufactured trademarked merchandise” and sold it “over the internet and at a concert.”

Assuming this refers to Alice and Michael selling homemade Grateful Dead merchandise, that is

a dramatic overstatement. There is no evidence that Alice and Michael had an ongoing business

together, much less that that they violated trademark law. On the contrary, Michael explained that

Grateful Dead concerts customarily feature a market for the sale of fan-made merchandise.

¶ 80 Geoffrey cites Walther as an example of a de facto marriage in which the couple’s finances

were not intertwined. However, Walther involved other kinds of interrelationship that are not

present in this case, such as the former wife sleeping at her boyfriend’s home every night for a

year, their children sharing a bedroom, and the couple publicly referring to themselves and their

children as a family. Walther, 2018 IL App (3d) 170289, ¶¶ 24-30. Walther does not compel

reversal. We find that Michael and Alice’s lack of financial interrelationship weighs against a

de facto marriage.

¶ 81 b. Family Members

¶ 82 Evidence that a couple spends “a lot of time with members of both their families” and

“present[s] themselves as a couple” supports a finding of a de facto marriage. See Edson, 2023 IL

App (1st) 230236, ¶ 142. Courts have found de facto marriages when the couple maintains good

relationships with each other’s children. See, e.g., Walther, 2018 IL App (3d) 170289, ¶ 14; In re

Marriage of Roofe, 122 Ill. App. 3d 56, 60 (1984).

¶ 83 The evidence established that Michael had little interaction with Alice’s family. He met

Alice’s sons, Sean and Jared, only a few times. He did not visit Sean or Jared at college, attend

their graduations, celebrate holidays or birthdays with them, or exchange gifts with them. Michael

- 22 - No. 1-24-0566

was not involved in Sean or Jared’s post-college moves to other cities, and he communicated with

them by phone either very little or not at all. See Larsen, 2023 IL App (1st) 230212, ¶ 159 (finding

no de facto marriage where a boyfriend did not attend his girlfriend’s child’s graduation). Alice

never expressed interest in marrying Michael to her sons, and there is certainly no indication that

Sean or Jared viewed Michael as their stepfather. See id. On the contrary, the evidence indicated

that Michael deliberately did not visit Alice’s home when her sons lived with her.

¶ 84 Similarly, Michael met Alice’s father one time and her mother just a handful of times.

When Alice’s father was in the hospital, Michael did not visit him with her. Michael met Alice’s

sister Cheryl twice. Alice introduced Michael to Cheryl as her friend, not her boyfriend or partner.

Michael did not attend the wedding of Alice’s sister Andrea. The only member of Michael’s family

Alice met was his sister in Texas, and that occurred just once. The lack of relationship between

Alice and Michael and their respective families suggests a casual dating relationship, not a de facto

marriage.

¶ 85 Geoffrey points to testimony that Michael had some degree of relationship with Alice’s

sister Cheryl and her husband Tom. For example, Cheryl and Tom had Alice and Michael over for

dinner one time and had a few interactions with him over the phone. However, Geoffrey does not

explain how that relatively minimal contact supports the conclusion that Alice and Michael were

in a de facto marriage rather than casually dating. We find that it does not. People who are dating

sometimes interact with each other’s family members without developing meaningful, long-term

relationships as they would in a marriage. This factor weighs against a de facto marriage.

¶ 86 c. Future Planning

- 23 - No. 1-24-0566

¶ 87 A de facto marriage typically involves planning to be together permanently, i.e., “formal

integration of the new relationship into future endeavors.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 156. Such

integration includes plans to retire together, granting each other power of attorney, and naming

each other as beneficiaries in estate planning documents or life insurance policies. Id. By contrast,

when the parties are not beneficiaries of each other’s financial accounts or life insurance policies,

that suggests no de facto marriage exists. See Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, ¶¶ 71, 152.

¶ 88 Alice and Michael did not plan their futures together. They never discussed moving in

together, getting engaged, or marrying. Alice and Michael were not beneficiaries on each other’s

bank accounts, investments, or life insurance policies. There is no indication they named each

other as power of attorney or that they planned to retire together.

¶ 89 Geoffrey implies that Alice intentionally did not take steps to make her relationship with

Michael permanent to avoid creating evidence that would support termination of maintenance.

While some former spouses may do that (see, e.g., Herrin, 262 Ill. App. 3d at 575), we see little

evidence of such machinations in this case. Rather, the evidence suggests that Alice and Michael’s

relationship was casual, fluctuating from dating to being friends, and that neither of them expected

a future together.

¶ 90 Altogether, the evidence established that Alice and Michael had almost none of the

interrelationship that exists in a typical marriage. They had little interaction with each other’s

families, maintained separate finances and households, and did not plan their futures together.

They rarely held themselves out as a couple, and there is no indication they ever intended to marry.

Accordingly, we find that the fourth Herrin factor weighs against finding a de facto marriage.

¶ 91 5. Vacations

- 24 - No. 1-24-0566

¶ 92 Evidence that a couple took multiple vacations together supports a finding of a de facto

marriage (Larsen, 2023 IL App (1st) 230212, ¶ 163), even if the trips were short (Walther, 2018

IL App (3d) 170289, ¶¶ 29, 31).

¶ 93 Alice and Michael took at least 13 trips together between 2015 and 2022. On these trips,

they stayed in the same accommodations and usually shared a bed. This factor weighs in favor of

a de facto marriage, but only to a limited degree. With one exception—visiting Michael’s sister in

Texas in 2015—none of Alice and Michael’s trips involved each other’s families. Cf. Larsen, 2023

IL App (1st) 230212, ¶ 166 (“multiple vacations, which included trips to visit friends and family,

as well as the inclusion of [the ex-wife’s] children, suggests evidence of a de facto marriage.”). In

addition, Alice and Michael’s trips were relatively short, and they split travel expenses evenly.

¶ 94 6. Holidays

¶ 95 A couple celebrating holidays and special events together supports a finding of a de facto

marriage. Id. ¶ 169. That is particularly true where the couple exchanged holiday and birthday

gifts. Snow, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 956; In re Marriage of Toole, 273 Ill. App. 3d 607, 612 (1995).

¶ 96 Alice and Michael celebrated the following special occasions together: New Year’s Eve in

2017, Thanksgiving in 2020, one Christmas Eve, several Valentine’s Days, and at least two

birthdays in 2015 and 2022. On some of these occasions, they exchanged gifts, but they never sent

out joint Christmas or birthday cards. Importantly, Alice and Michael never celebrated holidays or

birthdays with each other’s families, as a married couple typically would. Rather, they celebrated

as dating couples generally do, i.e., without others on birthdays, Valentine’s Day, and New Year’s

Eve. The only “family-oriented” holiday Alice and Michael celebrated together, Thanksgiving in

2020, was due to social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

- 25 - No. 1-24-0566

¶ 97 Geoffrey argues that Alice, in her interrogatory responses and trial testimony, untruthfully

minimized the holidays she spent with Michael. That is a question of credibility, and we generally

do not disturb a trial court’s credibility determinations. See Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236,

¶ 105. We especially reject Geoffrey’s claim that “[t]he sheer number of Alice’s false statements,

under oath, to the court are a clear indication that she will say whatever, whenever, without regard

for the truth and without respect for the integrity of the legal system.” This accusation is

hyperbolic, unnecessary, and largely irrelevant to this appeal, given that we defer to the trial court’s

credibility findings. See id. Accordingly, we find that the manner in which Alice and Michael

celebrated holidays weighs against a de facto marriage.

¶ 98 Considering all the Herrin factors together, the evidence established that Alice and

Michael’s relationship was intimate and relatively long-term, but not consistent or monogamous.

Some of their activities, particularly their trips together, suggested a more serious relationship. But

significantly, Alice and Michael did not take steps that would have made their relationship

marriage-like, such as moving in together, joining their finances, building relationships with each

other’s families, and planning for a future together. Their relationship was, at most, an intimate

dating relationship and not a de facto marriage that would warrant termination of maintenance

under section 510(c).

¶ 99 Finally, we note our frustration with the hyperbole of Geoffrey’s opening brief. Several

examples are set out above, but the following paragraph is particularly inappropriate:

“Looking to future cases, if the evidence here cannot prove cohabitation, then there

will be a simple roadmap for every recipient of maintenance who has a sufficient level of

assets—simply find a townhome nearby and do whatever you want, and maintenance is

- 26 - No. 1-24-0566

still paid indefinitely. Sleep together as often as you want. Travel together all you want.

Transfer all the funds you want. Share a daily existence. Hold yourself out as a spouse

when it benefits you. Delete and fail to provide years of texts. Answer falsely under oath,

repeatedly, in sworn interrogatories, and in testimony repeatedly contradict your own

statements, the evidence and the statements of the other. None of those actions would

matter. That would be a terrible precedent.”

In addition to its unnecessary sarcasm, this paragraph is inaccurate. Geoffrey will not pay

maintenance “indefinitely”; he will pay it for a total of 15 years, as he agreed to do 8 years ago

when he signed the marital settlement agreement. This obvious exaggeration is unhelpful and

unpersuasive, and we do not think our affirmance of the trial court’s thorough and thoughtful

decision sets “a terrible precedent.”

¶ 100 Alice and Michael were not cohabiting within the common meaning of that term, so section

510(c) does not apply. Four of the six Herrin factors weigh against finding a de facto marriage.

Accordingly, we find that the trial court’s denial of Geoffrey’s petition to terminate maintenance

was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and we affirm.

¶ 101 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 102 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Geoffrey’s amended petition

to terminate maintenance payments.

¶ 103 Affirmed.

- 27 - No. 1-24-0566

In re Marriage of Culm, 2025 IL App (1st) 240566

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 16-D- 1362; the Hon. Renee G. Goldfarb, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys Paul L. Feinstein, of Paul L. Feinstein, Ltd., of Northfield, for for appellant. Appellant:

Attorneys Jonathan R. Standeford and Matthew C. Arnoux, of Arnoux for Sharma Standeford, LLC, of Chicago, for appellee. Appellee:

- 28 -