In re Marriage of Brosh
Key Takeaways
- 1 Sporadic overnight visits and repaid loans insufficient to establish de facto marriage under Section 510(c).
- 2 Pro se appellant's undocumented income claims failed; trial court's credibility findings on maintenance modification upheld.
- 3 Relevant for family law attorneys handling maintenance termination, modification petitions, and Rule 375 sanctions requests.
Summary
In this post-dissolution appeal from St. Clair County, Kenneth Brosh challenged a February 2023 trial court order that denied his petition to terminate maintenance based on alleged de facto marriage, denied his claim of a substantial change in income, extended Donna's maintenance at $3,000 per month for 30 months retroactive to January 2022, and reduced child support from $2,301.69 to $1,493.00. Kenneth proceeded pro se on appeal. The Fifth District affirmed on all issues.
On the de facto marriage claim, the court applied the totality-of-circumstances test under Section 510(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act and found the evidence—Richard spending only one night in Donna's home over two and a half years, minimal shared holidays, and a repaid loan—insufficient to establish a resident, continuing conjugal relationship. On the income modification claim, the trial court found Kenneth's testimony not credible due to lack of transparency regarding rental income, determined his income remained $313,493 annually, and the appellate court deferred to those credibility findings. The maintenance extension was upheld given Donna's fluctuating income, inexperience managing rental properties received at dissolution, pandemic-related delays, health issues, and Kenneth's own failure to pay support beginning January 2022.
Practically, this case reinforces that the burden to prove de facto marriage is demanding and fact-intensive, that undocumented income claims will not overcome adverse credibility findings, and that courts retain broad discretion to extend maintenance where the recipient faces documented obstacles to self-sufficiency. Donna's request for Rule 375(b) sanctions was denied because Kenneth cited case law and made substantive arguments, even though all were rejected.
Key Holdings
1. A party seeking to terminate maintenance under Section 510(c) bears the burden of proving the recipient cohabits on a resident, continuing conjugal basis; evidence of one overnight visit, minimal shared holidays, and a repaid loan does not satisfy that burden.
2. A trial court's determination that a maintenance obligor failed to substantiate a decrease in income is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and appellate courts defer to the trial court's credibility and weight-of-testimony findings.
3. A trial court does not abuse its discretion in extending maintenance where the recipient received income-producing properties at dissolution that were not move-in ready, faced pandemic delays, incurred significant attorney fees, and suffered health setbacks impeding self-sufficiency.
4. Rule 375(b) sanctions are not warranted where an appellant, though unsuccessful, presented relevant case law and substantive argument in support of each contention on appeal.