Jim Dey | Odd man out spared alimony by means of ex’s ‘de facto’ marriage | columns

Two is company but three is a crowd, particularly so when one of the trio is paying $10,000 in monthly alimony to another.

That was the situation in which Tazewell County resident John Churchill unhappily found himself after he and his wife, Amy, divorced after 17 years of marriage. A state appeals court recently ruled that John Churchill had good reason to be displeased.

As a consequence of the divorce, he was ordered to pay $5,000 in alimony and $6,040 in child support each month.

Shortly after the couple split, John Churchill’s former wife started seeing another man named — Jared Fogle.

Ultimately, John Churchill concluded, his former wife saw so much of Fogle that he should be relieved of paying $5,000 in monthly alimony.

In 2017, he asked the court to terminate his alimony payments because his ex-wife and Fogle’s relationship was a

“de facto” marriage.

The case did not go well. The judge not only denied his request but doubled his alimony to $10,000 a month.

The testimony of one of the Churchills’ children did not help his dad. His son testified that the idea of ​​his mother marrying Fogle was “humorous” and his own relationship with his girlfriend was “more serious than Amy and Jared’s relationship.”

Fogle and Amy Churchill each characterized their relationship as “temporary.” Further, while two other witnesses testified to seeing Fogle at Amy Churchill’s house, they couldn’t say how long or how often he stayed there.

That was until January 2020, when John Churchill again challenged his alimony payments by alleging a de facto marriage.

Why does a “de facto” marriage matter?

Illinois law states that “the obligation to pay future maintenance is terminated … if the party receiving the maintenance cohabits with another person on a resident, continuing conjugal basis.”

To rule on the issue, the law requires judges to examine the “totality” of the evidence and consider factors that include the length of the couple’s relationship, the amount of time spent together, the nature of the activities engaged in, the intermingling of their personal finances, and whether the couple vacations or spends holidays together.

Part of the second trial was like the first, the couple denying

any permanent relationship. Indeed, Fogle’s comments were not exactly gallant.

He testified that he loved Amy Churchill’s children and wanted children of his own, but not with her. Fogle said he and Amy Churchill did not have an “exclusive” relationship and characterized her as unattractive.

Fogle said he already would have left her but “did not want to abandon” her during the trial.

Amy Churchill testified that she loved Fogle but said their relationship was a “long-distance” one in which they occasionally visited each other.

But a private investigator’s testimony and admissions from Amy Churchill and Fogle persuaded the three-judge appeals court panel of the existence of a “de facto” marriage.

The couple had exchanged rings. Fogle sent packages to her residence that were addressed to “Amy Fogle” (his last name). They vacationed and spent holidays together as well as “significant time together” when Fogle was not on the working on the road.

The court characterized Fogle’s decision to address mail to “Amy Fogle” as instructive. The woman to whom it was addressed said the use of “Amy Fogle” was secret code that meant she should wait for Fogle before opening it. But the court said “her explanation makes zero sense” and “supports a finding of a husband-and-wife relationship.”

The court also viewed the couple’s decision to exchange rings in the same manner.

Ultimately, the appeals court ruled that the trial judge abused her discretion by badly misjudging the evidence at trial and terminated John Churchill’s alimony payments.