Gitlin Law Firm 2008 Illinois Divorce and Paternity Case and ...

(Emphasis added.) 750 ILCS 5/501(c--1)(2) (West 2006); see also In re Marriage
of Beyer, 324 Ill. App. 3d 305, 314 (2001) (noting that section 501(c--1)(2) creates
a presumption that attorney fees will be treated as advances, but that the
presumption does not apply where the court orders otherwise).
Here, the trial court ordered otherwise when following trial it ordered that, subject
to the division of the marital estate, which was skewed so as to compensate
Nicholas for attorney fees incurred as a result of Angeline's behavior during the
proceedings, the parties were to be responsible for their respective attorney fees.
Accordingly, the trial court's decision falls squarely within the confines of the
statute.
The appellate court then stated:
Thus, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in requiring the parties
to be responsible for their respective attorney fees. See In re Marriage of Bussey,
108 Ill. 2d 286, 299 (1985) ("The awarding of attorney fees and the proportion to
be paid are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed
on appeal, absent an abuse of discretion").
Eberhardt - Attorney’s Fees / Right to a Hearing under Section 508(b)
IRMO Eberhardt, (First Dist., December 12, 2008)
In this case the husband’s counsel asked for a separate evidentiary hearing where the wife’s lawyer
would be required to testify about his fees and services. The trial court denied the request and
ordered the husband to pay $3,000 of the wife’s attorney fees. The judge said he had considered
the parties' arguments and the factors used by courts in assessing a petition for attorney fees. The
judge said he also had reviewed wife’s lawyer’s hourly billing sheets and costs. The appellate
court stated:
It appears from the transcripts that the trial court regarded proceedings held on
December 19, 2006, as a hearing on attorney fees. But because Stephen requested a
separate hearing, he is entitled to receive one. We reverse the trial court's award of
attorney fees and remand for a hearing on this issue.
Thompson - Attorney’s fees for GAL / Right to Evidentiary Hearing for Final Fee Hearing
st
IRMO Thompson, No. 1-06-0472 (1 Dist., June 23, 2008)
In this case, the Muller Firm Ltd. (the firm) was appointed by the trial court to represent the
parties' children in the proceeding. At issue was whether the trial court erred in granting the firm's
“fee petition for setting final fees and costs” without first holding an evidentiary hearing. The
appellate court ruled that it did and reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court
distinguished interim and final fee awards and noted that in petitions for fees under §508 where a
contested hearing is requested, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing on the petition.
The dissent is good reading. It urged that an individual must make a showing entitling him to
challenge the §506 fee petition at an evidentiary hearing, in this case, by establishing "good
cause." The dissent stated, “Unlike Kaufman and Jones, this case does not involve a fee dispute
under §508 between parties to a divorce, but a §506 petition by a child representative.” The
The Gitlin Law Firm, P.C. Page 40 of 55 www.gitlinlawfirm.com