{ "id": 5439927, "name": "In re THE MARRIAGE OF VIRGIL KEITH CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, and SANDRA K. CLARK, Respondent-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "In re The Marriage of Clark", "decision_date": "1983-01-11", "docket_number": "No. 82-411", "first_page": "960", "last_page": "962", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "111 Ill. App. 3d 960" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "404 N.E.2d 1131", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "382 N.E.2d 823", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 Ill. App. 3d 844", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3325875 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/65/0844-01" ] }, { "cite": "404 N.E.2d 469", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 Ill. App. 3d 657", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5555491 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/83/0657-01" ] }, { "cite": "388 N.E.2d 1131", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "70 Ill. App. 3d 609", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5577333 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/70/0609-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 257, "char_count": 3324, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0696742960046075e-07, "percentile": 0.7575903073885775 }, "sha256": "aaf31b56cc26a6fd2ca66cd9579ea5618b4826c24758b482a9daba558f5d915b", "simhash": "1:271139d9cfe3b678", "word_count": 543 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:05.990742+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re THE MARRIAGE OF VIRGIL KEITH CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, and SANDRA K. CLARK, Respondent-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE ALLOY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe petitioner, Virgil Keith Clark, appeals from an order denying his petition for termination of maintenance payments to the respondent, Sandra K. Clark. The petitioner\u2019s request for termination of payments is based on alleged cohabitation by the respondent on a resident, continuing conjugal basis. We affirm the decision of the lower court.\nSection 510(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (hereafter the Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 40, par. 510(b)) provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the obligation to pay future maintenance is terminated if \u201cthe party receiving maintenance, cohabits with another person on a resident, continuing conjugal basis.\u201d The evidence in the instant case clearly established a resident, conjugal relationship. However, in interpreting the Act the courts of this State have held that a de facto husband-wife relationship must be shown in order to demonstrate cohabitation. In re Support of Halford (1979), 70 Ill. App. 3d 609, 388 N.E.2d 1131; In re Marriage of Bramson (1980), 83 Ill. App. 3d 657, 404 N.E.2d 469.\nIn the case at bar, the evidence proved that Mrs. Clark\u2019s paramour, Larry Cox, bought groceries for Mrs. Clark and her children and bought some clothing for Mrs. Clark. Cox took his meals with Mrs. Clark and her children and worked with Mrs. Clark to clean and maintain their residence. Mrs. Clark did his laundry and cooked his meals. Cox moved into Mrs. Clark\u2019s residence in October and left in January. After moving out, he phoned Mrs. Clark weekly. During the Christmas holidays, the gifts to Mrs. Clark\u2019s children were signed \u201cLarry and Mom.\u201d Mrs. Clark spent the holidays at Cox\u2019s parents\u2019 home.\nThe trial court found that this was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Act. The modification of maintenance payments is within the court\u2019s discretion, and its order will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Miller v. Miller (1978), 65 Ill. App. 3d 844, 382 N.E.2d 823.\nWe find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The evidence is insufficient to establish cohabitation on a continuing basis.\nThe petitioner asserts on appeal that denial of his petition to terminate maintenance violates public policy by encouraging cohabitation without marriage. However, the legislative intent behind the Act does not appear to be an attempt to control public morals. The concern is not the morality of conduct but the recipient\u2019s need for support. In re Marriage of Bramson (1980), 83 Ill. App. 3d 657, 404 N.E.2d 1131.\nThe trial court relied on the Bramson case in reaching its decision. We, too, rely on Bramson in stating that by our opinion we do not approve or condone Mrs. Clark\u2019s living arrangement; rather, we conclude only that her conduct does not fall within the provisions of section 510(b) of the Act.\nThe decision of the circuit court is supported by the evidence and is therefore affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSTOUDER and SCOTT, 33., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE ALLOY" } ], "attorneys": [ "William J. O\u2019Connor, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Gary L. Brown, of Butz, Mortell, Jaffe, Smith, O\u2019Connor & Brown, of Kankakee, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re THE MARRIAGE OF VIRGIL KEITH CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, and SANDRA K. CLARK, Respondent-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 82\u2014411\nOpinion filed January 11, 1983.\nWilliam J. O\u2019Connor, of Chicago, for appellant.\nGary L. Brown, of Butz, Mortell, Jaffe, Smith, O\u2019Connor & Brown, of Kankakee, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0960-01", "first_page_order": 982, "last_page_order": 984 }