The Docket - December 2023

THE

DOCKET The Official Publication of the Lake County Bar Association • Vol. 30 No. 12 • December 2023

Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.

– Helen Keller

Happy Holidays From the Lake County Bar Association

CONFERENCE ROOM For meetings only. Seats 16 – 20 comfortably During business hours (8 am – 5 pm) • Member- Free • Non-Member $150/1st hour. $50/hour after • Non-Member, Not-for-Profit: $25/hour

2023 LCBA OFFICE RENTAL PRICING

After Hours (5 pm – 9 pm) • Member - $25 per hour • Non-Member – Not Available • Non-Member, Not-for-Profit: $50 per hour

MEMBER CENTER “The Bar” Accommodates up to 100 people During business hours (8 am – 5 pm) Members (add $25/hour for after hour events) • Meeting only (individual or group, no food or beverages served: Free • Self-Service reception or party (provide own alcoholic beverages): $50 per hour • Hosted beer & wine reception or party (beer & wine provided by Association): $250/ 1st hour, $50/hour after Non-Members: (add $50/hour for after hour events) • Meeting only (individual or group, no food or beverages served): $50 per hour • Self-Service reception or party (provide own alcoholic beverages and food): $300/ 1st hour, $50/hour after • Hosted beer & wine reception or party – Not Available Non-Member, Not-for-Profit: (add $25/hour for after hour events) • Meeting only (individual or group, no food or beverages served): $25 per hour • Self-Service reception or party (provide own alcoholic beverages and food): $150/1st hour, $25/hour after • Hosted beer & wine reception or party – Not Available Association Committee Meetings (Conference Room or Member Center) Without beer & Wine - Free With Hosted Beer & Wine - $150 flat fee (for 5 – 15 people), $200 (over 15 people) Room rentals are based on availability. Rentals include use of A/V already in room (phone, TV, Speaker. WIFI).

All rentals include free parking in our large, well-lit, 45 vehicle parking lot adjacent to the LCBA building.

Contact the LCBA Office at 847-244-3143 or info@lakebar.org

Contents THE DOCKET • Vol. 30 • No. 12 • December 2023

FEATURES 16 An Intense Dating Relationship or Cohabitation? Have the Courts Really Told Us How to Answer That Question?*

BY GARY L. SCHLESINGER

* Note from the editor: This article was inadvertently cut off in last month’s print edition. We offer it here in its entirety. We apologize for the error.

A publication of the

300 Grand Avenue, Suite A Waukegan, Illinois 60085 (847) 244-3143 • Fax: (847) 244-8259 www.lakebar.org • info@lakebar.org THE DOCKET EDITORIAL BOARD Jeffrey A. Berman,Co-Editor Hon. Charles D. Johnson,Co-Editor Jennifer C. Beeler Kevin Berrill Hon. Bolling W. Haxall Hon. Daniel L. Jasica Hon. Christopher M. Kennedy Jennifer Luczkowiak Kevin K. McCormick Shyama Parikh Stephen J. Rice Neal A. Simon Hon. ­­­James K. Simonian Rebecca J. Whitcombe Alex Zagor

COLUMNS 2 President’s Page Embracing the Power of Peace

FURTHER INFORMATION IFC Office Rental Pricing 3 ARDC Update 5 LCBF 6 Calendar of Events 7 Lawyer Referral Service 12 LCBA Holiday Party 15 New LCBA Members 16 Monthly Committee Meetings BC Member Reception Sponsorship Opportunities

BY KATHARINE HATCH, PRESIDENT

4 The Chief Judge’s Page Remarkable Times in the Mighty 19th

BY CHIEF JUDGE MARK L. LEVITT

24 Board of Directors’ Meeting Minutes September 21, 2023

BY JEFFREY BERMAN, SECRETARY

STAFF Greg Weider Executive Director Jose Gonzalez Assistant Executive Director Nancy Rodriguez Receptionist

AD SIZE 1/8 Page 1/4 Page 1/2 Page Full Page Inside Front or Inside Back Cover

Back Cover

ONE ISSUE

6 ISSUES

12 ISSUES

$85 $80 $75 $145 $135 $125 $195 $185 $175 $325 $295 $275 $650 per issue $800 per issue

Classified Advertising

Standard $1.75 per word (Rate for LCBA Members) Text $2.75 per word (Rate for Non-Members) Bold $3.50 per word (Rate for LCBA Members) Text $4.50 per word (Rate for Non-Members) Classified Advertisement may contain as many words, numbers, symbols and boldface type.

Advertising Rates To place an ad or for information on advertising rates, call (847) 244-3143. Submission deadline: first day of month preceding the month of publication. All submissions must be made in electronic format (high resolution PDF or JPG format at a resolution of 300 pixels per inch or more.) See www.lakebar.org/page/Docket_Advertising The Docket is the official publication of the Lake County Bar Association, 300 Grand Avenue, Suite A, Waukegan, Illinois 60085 (847) 2443143, and is published monthly. Subscriptions for non-members are $45.00 per year.

Reproduction in whole or part without permission is prohibited. The opinions and positions stated in signed material are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Association or its members.

All submitted manuscripts are considered by the Editorial Board. All letters to the editor and articles are subject to editing. Publications of advertisements is not to be considered as an endorsement of any product or service advertised unless otherwise stated.

Embracing the Power of Peace

T

he world has always been a complex and dynamic landscape however, right now it is crucial to pause and reflect on the fundamental values that underpin our

Katharine Hatch President Danny Hodgkinson First Vice President Kevin Berrill Second Vice President Richard Gellersted Treasurer Jeffrey Berman Secretary Tara Devine Immediate Past President Hon. Jacquelyn Melius Craig Mandell Sarah Raisch Jeffrey O’Kelly Jeremy Harter Judy Maldonado Hon. Bolling Haxall

2

The Docket

society and what kind of a world we want to create.

One such value, perhaps now more than ever, is the importance of peace.

Peace is not merely the absence of conflict; it is a state of harmony, understanding, and cooperation that fosters the well-being of individuals and communities. In our capacity as legal professionals, we are not only advocates for justice but also champions of peace.

The legal system plays a pivotal role in resolving disputes, upholding the rule of law, and maintaining social order. Our commitment to justice goes hand in hand with our commitment to fostering a peaceful and inclusive society. The legal community has a responsibility to promote peaceful resolutions to conflicts. Whether through mediation, arbitration, or simply by

The

President’s Page

advocating for fair and just outcomes, we can contribute significantly to the creation of a more peaceful world.

Furthermore, do not underestimate the impact of our daily interactions within the legal community. Treating colleagues, clients, and all stakeholders with respect and empathy goes a long way in building bridges and creating an atmosphere of collaboration.

As we face the challenges of our time, including those posed by global events and societal changes, I encourage the LCBA membership to recommit to the principles of peace. Strive to find common ground, listen with an open mind, and seek solutions that prioritize understanding over discord. Our actions, no matter how small, can have a ripple effect that

BY KATHARINE HATCH PRESIDENT extends far beyond the courtroom.

In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “Peace is not merely a distant goal, but a journey we walk with every step.” May our journey in the legal profession be one that leads us towards a more just, equitable, and, ultimately, peaceful society.

Wishing you all a peaceful and fulfilling year ahead.

We’ve got you covered. ISBA Mutual is an Illinoisonly insurance company specializing in insuring solo practitioners and small firms.

Comprehensive Professional Liability Coverage Options for limits of liability and deductibles to fit your needs, to protect your firm, and to protect your clients

Practice Resource Center

Valuable information and resources to help you manage your practice

Free CLE

Both online and in-person events

Risk Management Helpline

Whether you have a potential liability issue, need advice on managing your practice, or an ethical question…we are here to help

Like you, we deal directly with clients, not agents or brokers.

Contact us and talk with a decision-maker.

(312) 379-2000 | ISBAMUTUAL.COM/APPLY

December 2023

3

Remarkable Times in the Mighty 19th

W

OW! Time sure flies when you’re having fun! It seems like only yesterday that I was sitting down to write my first Docket installment. Two years later, it is time for my last installment as Chief. Of all the responsibilities that come with this position, having this page to communicate with all of you has been one of the most enjoyable. Not to spend a lot of time on a retrospective, but these have truly been some remarkable times in the Mighty 19th Judicial Circuit.

When I began my first term as Chief, we were struggling with how to best resume “normal” court operations. We worked hard to find a balance between resumption of pre-pandemic court and remote proceedings. While the latter afforded parties a measure of convenience, we all knew

4

The Docket

that it made for a poor substitute for some types of in-person proceedings.

In order to implement a structure that took into account these occasionally competing considerations, I tasked each of our divisions with identifying cases and activities that could be conducted remotely, and others which should be held in person. I am proud of the structure that we developed and implemented as a circuit and believe that it is a model for the other circuits in our state. It is with the help of all of our justice partners, the bar, and the outstanding staff of our circuit that we were able to meet and exceed the standard of excellence that existed prior to the pandemic.

In addition to structural change, the circuit saw the implementation of our new case management system, eCourt. I am

The

Chief Judge’s Page certain that those of you who have occasionally read this column over the last few years are keenly aware of the time and effort that went into this generational shift for court operations.

The justice partners again stepped up with Herculean effort to see this project through. Special thanks go out to Circuit Court Clerk Cartwright Weinstein, State’s Attorney Rinehart, Public Defender Gossman, and their respective staff for countless hours spent developing and testing our system. A very special thanks to our very own Winnie Weber, Director of Judicial Information Systems, and her entire staff for all of their ongoing work. It is certainly no small feat to convince the judges that change can be good!

And speaking of change, I want to extend a very warm welcome to my successor, Chief-Judge-

BY CHIEF JUDGE MARK L. LEVITT Elect Dan Shanes. I know that Dan has been eagerly anticipating the challenges that await him. I can honestly say that as prepared as I know that he is, there is no way to predict the issues that he will be tackling on a daily basis. I am certain the 19th will be in great hands with Judge Shanes calling the shots.

I, on the other hand, look forward to returning to my first love…the courtroom! This has truly been a highlight of my career to serve the circuit in this role. It has been an honor and a privilege to come to work each day. I want to thank all of you for all of your help and encouragement these last few years, and I am excited to continue to serve you all going forward.

I will end by wishing all of you a wonderful holiday season and the happiest and healthiest of new years!

Help Your Bar Foundation Make A Difference!

As the authors expressed in an essay titled “Lawyers as Professionals and Citizens,” lawyers have a critical, ethical responsibility to provide services “in the public interest” and in furtherance of a “safe, fair and just society.” In a nutshell, that is the principal mission of your Lake County Bar Foundation.

The Lake County Bar Foundation is committed to continuing its support for worthy organizations and noble causes. And, of course, there always is more that can be done. With your support, we will be able to achieve that goal.

You can help by contributing time to support the Foundation. Please consider volunteering to serve on the Board or a Committee, or just participate in the Foundation’s philanthropic efforts. And, of course, please attend and support the Foundation’s events. Any comments or suggestions you have to help us further our goals are welcome.

Thank you for your continued support; it will help advance the Lake County Bar Foundation’s philanthropic efforts, and will be greatly appreciated.

December 2023

5

Contact the LCBA office for pricing at 847-244-3143

2

The

2

2 3

Calendar of Events

Docket Editorial Board Meeting 12/7/2023 12:15 PM Via Zoom

Local Government Committee Meeting 1/23/2024 12:15 PM Via Zoom

Gridiron Informational Meeting 12/12/2023 5:30- 6:30 PM Via Zoom

Juvenile Law Committee Meeting 1/24/2024 12:15-1:15 PM Via Zoom

FLAG Committee Meeting 12/13/2023 12:00 PM Via Zoom

Lake County Bar Foundation Board of Trustees Meeting 2/20/2024 4:00 PM Via Zoom

Lake County Bar Foundation Board of Trustees Meeting 12/19/2023 4:00 PM Via Zoom Family Law Committee Meeting 12/20/2023 12:00 PM Via Zoom Civil Trial & Appeals Committee Meeting 1/10/2024 4:00 PM Via Zoom Solo & Small Firm Commitee Meeting 1/22/2024 12:15 -1:15 pm Via Zoom

6

The Docket

Local Government Committee Meeting 2/27/2024 12:15 PM Via Zoom Annual Meeting Luncheon 3/19/2024 12:15 - 1:15 PM Glen Flora Country Club Waukegan, IL Lake County Bar Foundation Board of Trustees Meeting 4/16/2024 4:00 PM Via Zoom

LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE

WHY SHOULD YOU JOIN? The LCBA Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) is a valuable member benefit as well as a public service. LRS provides member attorneys with an opportunity to build business through client referrals. The service benefits the public by helping callers quickly find an attorney in the area of law in which they need help.

The LRS program is designed to assist persons who are able to pay normal attorney fees but whose ability to locate legal representation is frustrated by a lack of experience with the legal system, a lack of information about the type of services needed, or a fear of the potential costs of seeing a lawyer.

Cost is only $200 annually for a Standard listing or $350 for a Premium listing. Download the application at www.lakebar.org/page/LRS or contact the LCBA office for more information.

ATTORNEYS NEEDED IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES • Administrative • Bankruptcy • Commercial • Consumer • Employment • Environmental • Estate Planning, Wills, Trusts and Probate Visit lakecountylawyer.info for a complete list of available categories.

CONTACT THE LCBA AT 847.244.3143 OR INFO@LAKEBAR.ORG

LAKECOUNTYLAWYER.INFO December 2023

7

Note from the editor: This article was inadvertently cut off in last month’s print edition. We offer it here in its entirety. We apologize for the error.

An Intense Dating Relationship or Cohabitation? Have the Courts Really Told Us How to Answer that Question?

T

BY GARY L. SCHLESINGER

ypically, in a cohabitation case, the appellate court affirms the trial court. Not so in the case of In re Marriage of Miller.1 That case arose out of a petition by Jeffrey Miller for the termination of maintenance payments to his ex-wife, Lorena Miller, pursuant to Section 510(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.2

The trial court found that Lorena was cohabiting with a man named Michael Meyers on a resident, continuing, and conjugal basis and, for that reason, terminated her maintenance. She appealed.

Relying on earlier Supreme Court decisions like In re Marriage of Sappington that had addressed the level of commitment, permanence, and partnership that is needed to establish a de facto marriage,3 the appellate court in Miller reversed, finding the trial court’s decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court held that the Lorena was Gary L. in an intense dating relationship, not a Schlesinger is a retired atde facto marriage, and thus was not cotorney whose 4 habiting. Notwithstanding the decision previous in Miller, however, it has been difficult practice was for practitioners to determine where concentrated 12

1 2 3 4

8

In re Marriage of Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530.

750 ILCS 5/510(c).

In re Marriage of Sappington, 106 Ill.2d 456 (1985).

Id. at ¶¶ 62-63

The Docket

the line is to be drawn between cohabitation and an intense dating relationship.

It is not the purpose of this article to trace the history of cohabitation law from the adoption of the governing statute, to Sappington, to date. Instead, it will endeavor to explore Miller and its progeny, such as the First District’s decision in In Re Marriage of Edson.5 The Edson decision is significant because the appellate court, in a lengthy, almost Herculean effort, attempted to mitigate the uncertainty flowing from Sappington and Miller and to clarify the point where an intense relationship ends and cohabitation begins. But did it succeed?

Whether a relationship amounts to a de facto marriage is generally considered to be a question of fact. As such, the Miller court, and others, have in family law.

He frequently utilized a non-exhaustive factor test to wrote on famdetermine whether such a relationship ily law topics exists, which is said to have “originated” and presented at family law seminars.

5

2023 IL App (1st) 230236.

from the Fourth District case of In re Marriage of Herrin.6 Those factors include: “(1) [the relationship’s] length; (2) the amount of time [the couple] spend[s] together; (3) the nature of the activities they engaged in; (4) the interrelation of their personal affairs; (5) their vacationing together; and (6) their spending holidays together.”7 In both Miller and Edson, however, the appellate courts indicated the Herrin factors were not a dispositive check list.8 In both cases, the standard on review was whether the trial court decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In Miller, the appellate court said yes and reversed the cohabitation finding. In Edson, the appellate court affirmed the finding of no cohabitation. In doing so, it agreed with the trial court that Edson was a close case, and then it deferred to the trial court because it was better able to determine the credibility of the witnesses.

In Miller, the court observed that after divorcing, Lorena had entered into an exclusive dating relationship with Michael.9 Michael began spending the night at Lorena’s home approximately twice per month.10 Eventually, according to Michael, the frequency increased such that he spent 70% of his weekends at Lorena’s home while Lorena equivocally testified that the frequency was lower.11 When Michael was not at Lorena’s home for the weekend, and during the rest of the week, he resided at his own home.12 Over the course of their six-year relationship, moreover, Lorena and Michael went on approximately 14 trips together, usually sleeping in the same bed.13 Lorena and Michael also celebrated some occasions together.14 Soon after Michael and Lorena started dating, Michael brought up the subject of marriage but did not ask Lorena to marry him.15 Lorena told him that she was not looking for marriage at that time, he should not raise the topic again and it would be raised, if ever, only by her.16 The court also observed that over the course of the relationship, the parties did not commingle their finances.17 Thereafter, the romantic

relationship ended, and Michael stopped spending weekends at Lorena’s house.18 In reaching its decision that Lorena was cohabiting with Michael, the trial court placed “considerable weight” on its credibility determinations, specifically its finding that Lorena’s testimony was not credible in several respects.19 Based on its assessment of the evidence, the trial court deemed a de facto marriage existed and ordered Lorena to repay Jeffrey approximately $70,000 in maintenance payments.20 The appellate court in Miller began its analysis of the de facto marriage question by looking to the Herrin decision and its six-factor test.21 After reviewing the trial court’s assessment of Lorena’s credibility,22 the Court noted that it was Jeffrey’s burden to show that Lorena and Michael had a de facto marriage.23 In that regard, the Court observed that, critically, there was no evidence “that there was ever any intention to make the relationship permanent, commingling of finances, or a shared household or shared household duties.”24 As such, “the evidence supports finding only an intimate dating relationship and not a de facto marriage.”25 The appellate court further found that although the trial court had looked to the six Herrin factors, it “did little weighing of the facts,” and it failed to recognize that the factors “are not a checklist.”26 Continuing, the court stated:

“Whether a relationship amounts to a de facto marriage is generally considered to be a question of fact.”

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

262 Ill. App. 3d 573 (4th Dist. 1964); see Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, at ¶ 40; Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, at ¶ 112.

Herrin, 262 Ill. App. 3d at 577; see Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, at ¶ 40; Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, at ¶ 112.

Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, at ¶ 48; Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, at ¶ 113.

Id., at ¶ 5.

Id., at ¶ 9.

Id., at ¶ 9.

Id., at ¶ 12.

Id., at ¶ 13.

Id., at ¶ 14.

Id., at ¶ 15.

Id. Id., at ¶ 16.

Searching the evidence to find facts to assign to each of the six factors does not establish that a relationship rises to the level of a de facto marriage where those facts lack depth and seriousness…

[C]ourts should be mindful that the circumstances of an intimate dating relationship are also likely to involve facts that fit into each of the six factors, such that those facts in their totality must attain a certain gravitas to establish a de facto marriage.27 The Miller court concluded that “the circumstances of this case demonstrate that Lorena and Michael did not have a de facto marriage. Rather, it found that although many of the six factors were present, Lorena and Michael shared no

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Id., at ¶ 15.

Id., at ¶¶ 27, 43.

Id., at ¶ 28.

Id., at ¶¶ 39-40.

Id., at ¶¶ 41-43.

Id., at ¶ 44.

Id. Id., at ¶ 46.

Id., at ¶¶ 46.47-50.

Id., at ¶ 46.

December 2023

9

more than an intimate dating relationship.”28 Summarizing, the court stated: [T]he evidence clearly shows companionship and exclusive intimacy. However, a deeper level of commitment, permanence, and financial or material partnership are absent from Lorena and Michael’s relationship such that it cannot reasonably be elevated beyond an intimate dating relationship. It is not a de facto marriage.29 The First District’s more recent decision in Edson similarly arose out of post-judgment dissolution of marriage proceedings between former spouses Richard Edson and Julee Edson.30 Specifically, Richard filed a petition to terminate his obligation to make monthly maintenance payments, alleging that Julee was cohabiting with another party named Curt Leaich on a “continuing conjugal basis.”31 Specifically, Richard alleged that Julee and Curt cohabitated and held themselves out as a couple to both family and friends by attending family functions together; spending substantial time and overnights with one another; travelling and going on vacations together; spending holidays together and with friends and family on a regular basis; living and sharing meals together at Julee’s residence; holding themselves out as a couple on social media; attending one of Richard and Julee’s daughter’s wedding, as well as financially contributing to the celebration together; and listing Curt as a family member in an obituary for one of Julee’s relatives.32 As such, Richard asserted that the relationship rose to the level of a “de facto” marriage.33 Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that Richard had failed to meet his burden to prove that Julee was cohabiting with another in a resident, conjugal, and continuing relationship.34 Specifically, the trial court held that, although Richard established that Julee was involved in an intimate dating relationship, he had failed to establish that she was in a de facto marriage.35 After reviewing the trial court testimony, and applicable law, the appellate court agreed.

The Edson appellate court acknowledged the Herrin decision, and its six-factor test, which it labeled as “nonexhaustive.”36 It also noted that a finding of an “intimate dating relationship” does not “equate to the conclusion that the relationship is resident, continuing, and conjugal, as required by statute.”37 It further found that the law is “now focused on whether a relationship is ‘husband-and-wife-like’ in nature, 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Id., at ¶ 51; see id. at ¶¶ 51-62.

Id., at ¶ 62; see id. at ¶¶ 63-69.

Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, at ¶ 1.

Id., at ¶¶ 1, 9.

Id., at ¶ 1.

Id., at ¶¶ 1, 9.

Id., at ¶ 2.

Id., at ¶ 2, 95-102.

Id., at ¶ 112.

Id., at ¶ 115, citing In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill. 2d 489, 524 (2004); In re Marriage of Johnson, 215 Ill. App. 3d 174, 180-81 (4th Dist. 1991); and In re Marriage of Sappington, 106 Ill. 2d 456, 467-68 (1985).

10 The Docket

i.e. one of a de facto marriage, based on the totality of the circumstances.38 Thus, each “case seeking a termination of maintenance based on the recipient spouse’s conjugal cohabitation rests on its own unique set of facts”.39 Among the salient facts the Edson appellate court found significant was that although Julee and Curt had been together for four years, “the length of the couple’s relationship carries less weight based on other relevant factors,” and other aspects of their relationship demonstrated that the relationship lacked the depth of commitment present in a de facto marriage.40 The court observed that Julee and Curt “had never been engaged,” they had not considered marriage and Julee was not interested in marriage.41 The amount of time the couple spent together also did not conclusively demonstrate the depth of commitment present in a de facto marriage.42 The evidence showed that Julee and Curt spent a significant amount of time together when able to, given Curt’s mostly out-of-town job schedule, they “were only able to spend time together on the weekends and did not live a day-to-day life together that would be more reflective of a husbandand-wife-like relationship.”43 The court contrasted this scenario with the facts of Herrin, where the couple “saw each other every day for two and a half years and spent most evenings together.”44 The appellate court further agreed that the nature of the activities the couple engaged in together also did not conclusively demonstrate the depth of commitment present in a de facto marriage.45 It noted: “it was clear that the two were in a monogamous, romantic relationship,” that they engaged “in same activities and events in which married couples typically participate” and they were “were physically affectionate with each other.”46 However, the evidence also showed that “the couple continued to live completely separate lives, even within their activities together.”47 Despite spending weekends with Julee, Curt did not have any belongings stored at her home, and she never stayed at his home.48 The court also pointed out that “[o]verall, the testimony was that both paid for their own expenses.”49 The appellate court noted that “socializing and eating together either in the home or in public have been found to be characteristic of de facto marriages.”50 Further, it noted that shared household chores, including laundry, cooking and maintenance work may evidence a de facto marriage.51 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, at ¶ 115, citing Sappington, 106 Ill. 2d at 467; and Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, at ¶ 2.

Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, at ¶ 118.

Id., at ¶¶ 122, 125.

Id., at ¶¶ 123-124, 138.

Id., at ¶¶ 126-133.

Id., at ¶ 132.

Id. Id., at ¶¶ 126-133.

Id., at ¶ 136.

Id., at ¶ 137.

Id. Id. Id., at ¶ 138.

Id., at ¶ 139.

In addition, it observed that Curt and Julee shared a bedroom at her house, as well as on various vacations, which may point towards evidence of a de facto relationship.52 The court did not expound, however, on the question of how it would evaluate any of these individual considerations, particularly how much of each would be needed to establish a de facto marriage. Ultimately, the appellate court simply agreed with the trial court that Julee and Curt’s relationship was romantic and “clearly emotional, social and intimate.”53 The appellate court then turned to the question of the interrelation of the couple’s personal and financial affairs.

It observed that the trial court had stated it had to assess the “totality of the circumstances to determine whether the new relationship functions practically and economically in a marriage-like way and resist deciding primarily upon emotional and social considerations.”54 With regard to personal affairs, the court acknowledged that the two had involved one another in their personal and social lives.55 In contrast, however, the two had never been engaged, and Julee was not interested in marrying Curt.56 Further, the trial court had found that the couple had “completely and consistently maintained separate households and finances.”57 With regard to credit cards and other financial accounts, the trial court observed that the two did not share any and maintained their own.58 There also was testimony that neither assisted each other with any of their bills or debts.59 Ultimately, the trial court concluded that, despite the length and nature of the relationship, “[o]n a practical and economic level,” the two “could end their relationship and go their own way with virtually no effort whatsoever” because “financially, there [was] nothing to untangle[,]” “no assets or debts to divide[,]” “no deeds to quit claim[,]” “no titles to transfer[,]” and “no refinancing [ ] necessary.”60 The appellate court concurred with the trial court’s conclusions.61 In doing so, it relied upon and quoted the following passage from Miller: In distinguishing an intimate dating relationship … from a marriage-like relationship … we think it fair to state the following. 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 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Id., at ¶ 143.

Id., at ¶ 144.

Id., at ¶ 148.

Id., at ¶ 149.

Id. Id., at ¶¶ 150-152.

Id., at ¶ 152.

Id., at ¶ 153.

Id. Id., at ¶¶ 155-158.

would most likely come in the form of a shared household).” 62 In the end, the appellate court reasoned that “companionship and exclusive intimacy” were not enough to carry the day against a lack of evidence relating to formal commitment and partnership ventures.63 The court gave credence to the fact that on a social and emotional level, Julee and Curt had begun to integrate their lives with the time they had together. However, when assessing the more “practical and economical” hallmarks of a husband-and-wife-like relationship, including showings of commitment and mutual permanence, it concluded that “the partnership is lacking.”64 The trial court’s denial of Richard’s petition rested on the fact that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Julee and Curt’s relationship was more akin to an intimate dating relationship, rather than a de facto marriage. The trial court agreed that Richard had sufficiently established the social and emotional aspects of a long-term, romantic relationship that involved both parties’ families. However, on balance, it determined that the “relationship lacked certain practical and economic characteristics, specifically with regard to their otherwise separate lifestyles and financial situations,” relying on Miller as persuasive to its conclusion.65 Noting that its review of the trial court’s decision was “not based on whether we would come to the same conclusion as the court, but whether an ‘opposite conclusion is clearly evident’ or if the decision is ‘unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence’,” the appellate court held that the trial court’s conclusion was not “unreasonable.”66 Noting it must be “mindful that the trial court is in the best position to assess the evidence before it,” the appellate court could not “say that the court’s ultimate and well-reasoned conclusion is not supported by the record.”67 As such, the appellate court did “not find that the trial court’s denial of the petition was against the manifest weight of the evidence” and, thus, it affirmed.68 There you have it. The lesson learned from Edson, perhaps, is simply that without a demonstration of significant financial entanglement, a petition alleging cohabitation will fail. Both the trial court and the appellate court said that Edson “was a close call.”69 In this author’s opinion, it was not, given the courts’ heavy emphasis on lack of financial intermingling as apparently being dispositive of the issue.

62 63 64

65 66 67 68 69

Id., at ¶ 159, citing and quoting Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, at ¶ 61 (emphases added in original).

Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, at ¶ 160, citing and quoting Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, at ¶¶ 62-63.

Edson, 2023 IL App (1st) 230236, at ¶¶ 161-165. The appellate court also noted that the couple had vacationed together (id. at ¶¶ 166-173) and spent holidays together (id. at ¶¶ 166-182), it found these factors were not necessarily compelling in establishing a de facto marriage.

Id., at ¶ 184.

Id., at ¶ 185, citing and quoting Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530, at ¶ 40.

Id. Id. Id.

December 2023

11

LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION

HOLIDAY PARTY NOVEMBER 30, 2023

12

The Docket

Helping people obtain the benefits that are rightfully theirs.

Do you have a client who cannot work and is struggling to obtain Social Security Disability benefits?

Has your client already been turned down?

SSD cases can be time-consuming and confusing, with complex requirements and deadlines.

With nearly 25 years of experience, The Good Law Group has won cases at all levels of the claims process, including cases originally declined by the Social Security Administration.

Get help today!

847-577-4476 | 800-419-7606 thegoodlawgroup.com • info@TheGoodLawGroup.com 209 W. Madison Street, Suite 1, Waukegan, IL 60085

Resolute Systems Welcomes

JUDGE DAVID BRODSKY, ret.

MEDIATOR | ARBITRATOR

to Our Illinois Team of Dispute Resolution Professionals Resolute Systems is pleased to welcome Judge David Brodsky, Ret. to our team of dispute resolution professionals. Judge Brodsky will concentrate his mediation practice in the areas of: We congratulate Judge Brodsky on his outstanding judicial career where he developed a reputation as an extremely effective pre-trial mediator. To schedule mediation with Judge Brodsky, please contact Mike Weinzierl at 312.346.3770, x125 or go to our Web Pages at davidbrodskymediation.com

• Personal Injury

• Products Liability

• Nursing Home

• Wrongful Death

• Contract

• Premises Liability

• Medical Malpractice

• Mechanics Lien Litigation

• Defamation

• Legal Malpractice

• Eminent Domain

• Divorce & Family

• Commercial

• Probate

December 2023

13

Board of Directors’ Meeting

The

October 19, 2023

M

inutes of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Lake County Bar Association held in the Executive Conference Room of the Lake County Bar Association, 300-A BOARD OF DIRECTORS Katharine Hatch

President

Daniel Hodgkinson

First Vice President Kevin Berrill

Second Vice President Richard Gellersted

Treasurer

Jeffrey Berman

Secretary

Tara Devin Immediate Past President Craig Mandell

Director

Jeremy Harter

Director

Jeffrey O’Kelley

Director

Sarah Raisch

Director

Judy Maldonado

Director

Hon. Bolling Haxall

Director Greg Weider Executive Director

14

The Docket

Meeting Minutes

BY JEFFREY A. BERMAN SECRETARY

Grand Avenue, Waukegan, Illinois, via Zoom videoconferencing, on Thursday, October 19, 2023 CALL TO ORDER President Hatch called the meeting to order at 12:13 p.m.

ROLL CALL Roll call indicated a quorum was established, with the following individuals present: Katharine Hatch, President; Daniel Hodgkinson, First Vice President; Kevin Berrill, Second Vice President; Richard Gellersted, Treasurer; Tara Devine, Immediate Past President; Craig Mandell, Director; Jeff O’Kelley, Director; Sarah Raisch, Director; Judy Maldonado, Director; Hon. Bolling Haxall, Director; and Greg Weider, Executive Director.

ACTION ITEMS • Consent Agenda Items September 21, 2023 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes

The draft minutes from the September 21, 2023 meeting of the Board of Directors was included in the agenda packet. There were no requests for other additions, corrections, or changes to the draft minutes.

September New Members and Membership Report The New Members report as of September 8, 2023 was included in the Agenda packet, along with a full Membership report as of September 8, 2023.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Upon unanimous voice vote, the motion was declared carried. The Consent Agenda is approved.

• Treasurer’s Report The September 2023 Financial Report and supporting materials were included in the Agenda packet. Treasurer Gellersted made a presentation regarding the September 2023 Financial Report. Discussion followed. A motion

was made and seconded to approve the Treasurer’s Report. Upon unanimous voice vote, the motion was declared carried. The Treasurer’s Report is approved.

OLD BUSINESS There was no old business NEW BUSINESS • Juvenile Justice Committee Executive Director Weider presented the idea of creating a LCBA Juvenile Justice Committee. Discussion followed. A motion was made and seconded to approve the creation of a Juvenile Justice Committee. Upon unanimous voice vote, the motion was declared carried. First Vice President Daniel Hodgkinson will serve as the committee’s Board Liasson.

• LCBA/LCBF Website Improvements Update President Hatch and Executive Director Weider gave an update of a meeting of the website update committee. Discussion followed.

• LCBA/LCBF Joint Meeting Update President Hatch provided the Board with an update from the recent LCBA/LCBF Joint Meeting.

• LCBA Holiday Party The Board had a discussion on the time and location for the 2023 LCBA Holiday Party. Thursday November 30th at the LCBA was selected.

• Member Satisfaction Survey Executive Director Weider informed the Board that the staff is in the process of preparing the annual LCBA Member Satisfaction Survey. He asked the Board if they had any input regarding the survey questions to please contact him.

• Real Life Program President Hatch asked the Board for input on how to best revitalize the Real

Life program. Discussion followed OTHER MATTERS • Committee Liaison Reports Board members provided Committee updates.

• Executive Director Report Executive Director Weider presented his Executive Director Report for October, including providing an update on upcoming scheduled events.

ADJOURNMENT A motion was made to adjourn. Upon unanimous voice vote, the motion was declared carried.

The meeting concluded at 12:41 p.m. The next Board of Directors Meeting is scheduled to take place on Thursday, November 16, 2023.

Welcome

New LCBA Members

FREE CLE DISCOUNTED CLE BUSINESS MEETINGS LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP THE DOCKET & WEEKLY E-NEWS

ATTORNEY Angela Curry Davis & Associates LLC Irina Melnik Cooper Trachtenberg Law Group, LLC Izabella Kanoza The Law Offices of Galanopoulos and Galgan Mackenzy Alex Bean Blitt & Gaines, P.C. PROFESSIONAL Richard A Stanfel Center Coast Private Wealth Management Darryl Ellis A-1 Detective Agency, LLC

Contact the LCBA office for pricing.

847-244-3143

December 2023

15

Monthly

Committee Meetings

DAY

GO TO

WWW.LAKEBAR.ORG FOR THE MOST UP-TO-DATE CALENDAR INFORMATION

Bar

Bulletin Board

To place an ad or for information on advertising rates, call (847) 244-3143

MEETING

LOCATION

TIME

1st Tuesday

Diversity & Community Outreach

Virtual Until Further Notice

12:15-1:15

1st Thursday

Real Estate

VUFN

5:30-6:30

1st Thursday (Even Mo.)

Docket Editorial Committee

VUFN

12:15-1:15

2nd Tuesday

Criminal Law

VUFN

12:15-1:15

2nd Tuesday (Odd Mo.)

Immigration

VUFN

4:30-5:30

2nd Wednesday

Family Law Advisory Group (FLAG)

VUFN

12:00-1:00

2nd Wednesday

Civil Trial and Appeals

VUFN

4:00-5:00

2nd Thursday

Young & New Lawyers

VUFN

12:15-1:15

2nd Thursday

Trusts and Estates

VUFN

12:15-1:15

3rd Monday (Odd Mo.)

Solo & Small Firms

VUFN

12:00 noon

3rd Tuesday

Local Government

VUFN

12:15-1:15

3rd Tuesday

LCBF Board of Trustees

VUFN

4:00

3rd Wednesday

Family Law

VUFN

12:00-1:00

3rd Thursday

LCBA Board of Directors

VUFN

12:00 noon

3rd Thursday

Debtor/Creditor Rights

VUFN

5:30-6:30

As Needed

Employment Law

VUFN

5:15-6:15

• RSVP to a meeting at www.lakebar.org.

• Meetings subject to change. Please check your weekly e-news, the on-line calendar at www.lakebar.org or call the LCBA Office @ (847) 244-3143.

• Please feel free to bring your lunch to the LCBA office for any noon meetings. Food and beverages at restaurants are purchased on a individual basis.

Do you have a speaker idea or suggestion for our business meetings?

We would like to hear from you!

Send your ideas to: jose@lakebar.org 16

The Docket

December 2023

17

MEMBER RECEPTION SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES LCBA Member Receptions will generally be held on the 4th Thursday of every month.

Your $500 sponsorship includes: • Recognition in advertising before the event and on signage at the event • Reception from 4:30 – 6:30 p.m.

• Complimentary beer and wine. Upgrades available for additional fee.

Contact Jose at jose@lakebar.org to add your name to a reception.

300 Grand Avenue, Suite A, Waukegan, IL 60085 Tel: 18 847-244-3143 The Docket • Fax: 847-244-8259