(See Reeder, 145 Ill. App.3d at 1017, 495 N.E.2d at 1385.) While proof of sexual conduct between the spouse receiving maintenance and the person with whom the spouse is living is no longer necessary to establish cohabitation on a conjugal basis (see In re Marriage of Sappington (1985), 106 Ill.2d 456, 468, 478 N.E.2d 376, 381), something more than merely living with another person of the opposite sex is required (see In re Marriage of Bramson (1980), 83 Ill. App.3d 657, 663, 404 N.E.2d 469, 473). (See also Reeder, 145 Ill. App.3d at 1017-18, 495 N.E.2d at 1385-86.)

Accordingly, we hold that the term "remarriage" as it appears in section 510(b) of the IMDMA means the ceremony of marriage and not the status of marriage, and the declaration of the invalidity of Sandra's remarriage did not act to reinstate the maintenance obligation. • 4 In reaching this decision, we note that Sandra's reliance on In re Marriage of Bramson (1980), 83 Ill. App.3d 657, 404 N.E.2d 469, and In re Marriage of Reeder (1986), 145 Ill. App.3d 1013, 495 N.E.2d 1383, which interpret the term "cohabits" as it appears in section 510(b), is inapplicable to an interpretation of the term "remarriage." In essence, Sandra argues that because the Bramson and Reeder courts interpreted the term "cohabits" as referring to a status situation rather than to a ceremony, such as interpretation should also apply to the term "remarriage" in that both terms appear in section 510(b).

The court emphasized that evidence of any "lesser involvement" is not sufficient to meet this standard. See In re Marriage of Bramson, 83 Ill. App. 3d 657, 663 (1980); In re Marriage of Reeder, 145 Ill. App. 3d at 1016. The court then considered whether the evidence presented by Bill in this case met this standard.

A line of reported cases, some of which respondent cites, implies that the recipient spouse's need is a central factor in determining whether maintenance should be terminated on the basis that the spouse has entered into a de facto marriage. For example, in In re Marriage of Bramson, 83 Ill. App. 3d 657 (1980), the court concluded that the recipient spouse had not "established a husband-wife" relationship with a man, based on the facts that the two did not live together for a long period of time, dated other people, and never "commingled their funds, as might be expected in a husband-wife relationship." Bramson, 83 Ill. App. 3d at 662-63.

A "lesser involvement" by the spouse receiving maintenance is insufficient to meet the standards of section 510(b). See In re Marriage of Bramson (1980), 83 Ill. App.3d 657, 663, 404 N.E.2d 469, 473. • 3 Section 510(b) does not represent an attempt by the legislature to control public morals.

As is pointed out in the briefs, there are no committee comments regarding this section of the statute, so that in determining the intention of the legislature we do not have the benefit of any contemporaneous exposition. According to In re Marriage of Bramson (1980), 83 Ill. App.3d 657, 404 N.E.2d 469, the addition to the statute terminating the recipient's right to receive maintenance was enacted in response to the holding in Atwater v. Atwater (1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 202, 309 N.E.2d 632. In Atwater the court held since Illinois does not recognize common law marriages, such a marriage by an alimony recipient did not terminate the right to receive alimony.

( Hirschfield v. Barrett (1968), 40 Ill.2d 224, 239 N.E.2d 831, cert. denied (1969), 393 U.S. 1062, 21 L.Ed.2d 706, 89 S.Ct. 716; Skillet Fork River Outlet Union Drainage District v. Fogle (1943), 382 Ill. 77, 46 N.E.2d 73.) Secondly, the three cases in which section 510(b) has been interpreted by appellate courts disclose a general agreement that by "conjugal" the legislature meant a relationship of a husband and wife nature, including its sexual aspects. In re Marriage of Bramson (1980), 83 Ill. App.3d 657, 404 N.E.2d 469; Schoenhard v. Schoenhard (1979), 74 Ill. App.3d 296, 392 N.E.2d 764; In re Support of Halford (1979), 70 Ill. App.3d 609, 388 N.E.2d 1131. Section 510(b) was first considered in Halford.

There have been seven appellate court cases in which section 510(b) has been previously interpreted and applied. They are: In re Marriage of Clark (1983), 111 Ill. App.3d 960; In re Marriage of Cohenour (1981), 101 Ill. App.3d 362; In re Marriage of Olson (1981), 98 Ill. App.3d 316; In re Marriage of McGowan (1980), 84 Ill. App.3d 609; In re Marriage of Bramson (1980), 83 Ill. App.3d 657; Schoenhard v. Schoenhard (1979), 74 Ill. App.3d 296; In re Support of Halford (1979), 70 Ill. App.3d 609. However, this is a case of first impression in this court.

¶ 109 Section 510(c) is not an attempt to control public morals. In re Marriage of Bramson, 83 Ill.App.3d 657, 663 (1980).

An important consideration is whether the cohabitation has materially affected the recipient spouse's need for support because he or she either received support from the coresident or used maintenance monies to support the coresident. Arvin, 184 Ill. App.3d at 649; Reeder, 145 Ill. App.3d at 1018; In re Marriage of Bramson (1980), 83 Ill. App.3d 657, 663." In re Marriage of Caradonna (1990), 197 Ill. App.3d 155, 159, 553 N.E.2d 1161, 1164.