In re Marriage of Hyman, 2024 IL App (2d) 230352

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Hyman, 2024 IL App (2d) 230352 - The article analyzes In re Marriage of Hyman, a December 2024 Illinois appellate decision establishing that attorney fee awards under Section 508(b) are mandatory—not discretionary—when a party prevails in enforcement actions and the opposing party's noncompliance lacked "compelling cause or justification," with trial courts only retaining discretion over the amount. The Second District vacated a reduced fee award because the trial court improperly relied on private consultations with unnamed attorneys rather than record-based evidence, which the appellate court deemed "extrajudicial contamination" that cannot form the basis for judicial decisions.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and In re Marriage of Hyman just handed enforcement practitioners a roadmap for making sure they stay there.

The Second District's December 2024 decision isn't just another fee dispute. It's a tactical blueprint for anyone pursuing—or defending against—Section 508(b) attorney fee petitions in Illinois dissolution enforcement actions. If your practice involves high-asset divorces where one party decides the judgment is merely a suggestion, this opinion demands your attention.

The Core Holding: Mandatory Fees Mean Mandatory Scrutiny

Here's what the appellate court made crystal clear: when you prevail on enforcement and the opposing party's noncompliance lacked "compelling cause or justification," the fee award isn't discretionary—it's mandatory under 750 ILCS 5/508(b). The trial court's only discretion lies in determining the amount of reasonable fees.

The trial court in Hyman slashed the requested fees from over $56,000 to $10,000. The appellate court vacated that reduction and remanded. Why? Because the trial court failed to articulate adequate, admissible reasons for the cut—and worse, relied on private conversations with unnamed attorneys to justify the reduction.

That's not judicial experience. That's extrajudicial contamination, and the Second District wasn't having it.

The Evidentiary Landmine: Private Consultations Are Fatal

This is where Hyman becomes genuinely dangerous for opposing counsel who've grown comfortable with vague fee reductions. The trial judge admitted to consulting with other attorneys outside the record to assess fee reasonableness. The appellate court's response was unequivocal: such inputs aren't subject to cross-examination or evidentiary testing, and they cannot form the basis for judicial decisions.

Translation for practitioners: if a judge reduces your fee petition without record-based reasoning, you now have appellate authority to challenge that reduction as an abuse of discretion. And if opposing counsel is banking on a judge's "gut feeling" to gut your petition, they're playing a losing hand.

The Reasonableness Framework: Build Your Record or Lose Your Fees

The court reaffirmed the conventional reasonableness factors that govern fee determinations:


Nature and importance of the matter
Novelty and difficulty of the issues
Attorney skill and responsibility required
Customary charges in the community
Benefit to the client
Nexus between fees incurred and the amount at stake


Notice that last factor. In high-asset enforcement actions, the nexus between legal fees and the disputed amounts is often your strongest argument. A $50,000 fee petition to enforce a $500,000 judgment provision isn't disproportionate—it's proportional. Document that nexus explicitly in your petition.

Appellate Fees: Preserve or Perish

Jeffrey Hyman argued that Rachel forfeited her request for appellate attorney fees. The appellate court rejected that argument and directed reconsideration on remand. The lesson is tactical: if you're defending an enforcement victory on appeal, explicitly seek Section 508(b) relief for appellate work during the appeal, not after.

Develop the record on reasonableness and necessity of appellate fees as the appeal progresses. Waiting until remand creates unnecessary risk and invites forfeiture arguments that—while rejected here—consume resources to defeat.

Postjudgment Interest: The Overlooked Leverage Point

The appellate court also addressed the denial of statutory postjudgment interest on the fee and enforcement award, remanding for consideration consistent with applicable law. This is the detail that separates competent enforcement work from elite enforcement work.

Statutory interest isn't a windfall—it's compensation for the time value of money that your client was denied by the opposing party's noncompliance. Include it in your petition. Brief the authorities. Make opposing counsel explain why their client's delay shouldn't cost them.

Strategic Implications for High-Net-Worth Enforcement

In high-asset dissolutions, noncompliance often isn't accidental—it's strategic. The noncompliant party is betting that enforcement costs will exceed recovery, creating a de facto discount on their obligations. Hyman disrupts that calculus.

When Section 508(b) fees are mandatory upon prevailing, and when appellate courts will vacate arbitrary reductions, the cost-benefit analysis shifts. Noncompliance becomes expensive. Enforcement becomes viable.

For practitioners representing the enforcing party: build your fee petition like you're building a trial record. Detailed time entries tied to specific tasks. Expert testimony or affidavits on customary rates. A clear narrative connecting each hour to the enforcement objective. Leave the trial court no room to reduce without explanation—and no explanation that survives appellate review.

For practitioners representing the alleged noncompliant party: the "compelling cause or justification" standard is your only defense against mandatory fees. If you can't meet it, your client's exposure includes not just the underlying obligation but the full cost of enforcement. Advise accordingly.

The Cyber-Law Intersection: Discovery Leverage You're Missing

Here's the angle most family law practitioners overlook: noncompliance often leaves digital fingerprints. Hidden assets require hidden communications. Delayed transfers require documented excuses. And in an era where every text, email, and financial transaction creates metadata, the same discovery tools that expose cyber negligence in data breach litigation can expose bad-faith noncompliance in dissolution enforcement.

If your opposing party claims they "couldn't" transfer assets or "didn't receive" notices, their digital footprint tells the real story. Forensic analysis of communication patterns, financial account access logs, and document metadata can establish not just noncompliance, but the absence of any "compelling cause or justification" for it.

That's how you lock in mandatory fees before the hearing even starts.

The Bottom Line

In re Marriage of Hyman is a gift to enforcement practitioners and a warning to noncompliant parties. The Second District has made clear that trial courts cannot arbitrarily slash fee awards, cannot rely on extrajudicial consultations, and must articulate specific, record-based reasons for any reduction.

The judge already knows the law. Now opposing counsel knows you know it too.

If you're facing enforcement issues in a high-asset Illinois dissolution—whether pursuing compliance or defending against allegations of noncompliance—the strategic landscape just shifted. Book a consultation now before your opposition figures out they're already losing.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, CEH, ISC2). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Consultation

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.