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

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Hyman, 2024 IL App (2d) 230352 - Here is a two-sentence summary of the article: The Second District Appellate Court in Illinois ruled that a trial court's fee reduction was improper because it was based on private consultations with unnamed attorneys, and the court vacated the decision and remanded the case for re-examination. The ruling clarifies that courts must provide a clear and transparent explanation when reducing attorney fees under Section 508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, and provides guidance for lawyers in enforcement cases involving high-asset dissolutions.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot. When the Second District Appellate Court vacated a trial court's fee reduction in In re Marriage of Hyman, it sent a clear message: judges cannot gut attorney fee awards without explaining themselves, and they certainly cannot base decisions on private conversations with unnamed lawyers. If you're enforcing a dissolution judgment against a non-compliant spouse—or defending against a fee petition—this case just rewrote your playbook.

The Setup: Enforcement, Fees, and a Judge Who Got Creative

Rachel Hyman prevailed on enforcement of the dissolution judgment. Jeffrey failed to comply. Under Section 508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, that makes attorney fees mandatory—not discretionary. The only question left is the amount.

Rachel's counsel submitted detailed billing: $56,755.25 in fees tied to enforcement work. The trial court slashed that to $10,000. No detailed explanation. No breakdown of which entries were excessive. And here's where it gets interesting: the judge admitted to consulting with unnamed attorneys outside the courtroom to form opinions about reasonable fees.

The appellate court didn't hesitate. Vacated. Remanded. Start over.

Why This Matters: The Mandatory Nature of 508(b) Fees

Section 508(b) isn't a suggestion. When a party prevails on enforcement and the opposing party's noncompliance lacked "compelling cause or justification," the statute mandates an award of costs and reasonable attorney fees. The trial court's discretion is narrow—limited to determining what's reasonable, not whether to award fees at all.

The appellate court reinforced the conventional reasonableness factors courts must apply:


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 issue


When a court substantially reduces a fee request, it must explain its reasoning on the record. "I talked to some lawyers" doesn't qualify.

The Extrajudicial Consultation Problem

This is where the case becomes a cautionary tale for both sides. The trial judge relied on private conversations with unnamed attorneys to inform the fee reduction. The appellate court shut this down with precision: a judge may draw on experience, but may not base decisions on private investigations or communications that aren't subject to cross-examination or evidentiary testing.

Think about the implications. If opposing counsel suspects a judge is making calls behind the scenes, this case provides ammunition. If you're the one submitting a fee petition, you now have authority to demand record-based reasoning—and to appeal when you don't get it.

Appellate Fees and Interest: The Issues That Survived

Rachel also sought fees for defending the appeal under Sections 508(a)(3) and 508(b). The trial court denied them. Jeffrey argued forfeiture. The appellate court rejected that argument and directed reconsideration on remand.

The lesson: if you're doing enforcement work, explicitly request 508(b) relief for appellate work. Build the record on reasonableness and necessity. Don't assume the trial court will connect the dots.

The denial of statutory postjudgment interest was also addressed and remanded for consideration consistent with applicable law. If you're seeking interest on a fee award, brief the statutory authorities. Don't leave it to chance.

Strategic Implications for High-Asset Enforcement

In high-net-worth dissolutions, enforcement battles are where the real war happens. Judgment in hand means nothing if your ex-spouse decides compliance is optional. Section 508(b) exists to ensure that the cost of their obstruction lands on them, not you.

Hyman strengthens your position—but only if you execute properly:

For Fee Petitions:

Submit detailed time entries with task-specific descriptions
Tie each entry to enforcement work—not general litigation activity
Quantify the nexus between fees incurred and the relief obtained
Include supporting testimony or affidavits on customary rates in your jurisdiction


For Opposing Fee Petitions:

Challenge vague or block-billed entries
Demand the court articulate specific, record-based reasons for any award
Object immediately if the court references extrajudicial consultations


For Remand Strategy:

Seek an evidentiary hearing on fees
Present expert testimony on reasonableness if the amounts are substantial
Brief postjudgment interest authorities if interest is at issue


The Cyber-Law Angle: Digital Discovery as Leverage

Enforcement disputes increasingly turn on electronic evidence. Bank records, cryptocurrency wallets, communication metadata—all of it lives in digital form. When a spouse claims inability to comply, forensic analysis often tells a different story.

If your opposing party has been sloppy with cybersecurity, that's leverage in discovery. Hidden assets leave digital trails. Deleted communications can be recovered. A forensic examination of devices and accounts can expose noncompliance that would otherwise remain invisible.

The intersection of family law and technology isn't theoretical. It's where enforcement cases are won.

The Bottom Line

Hyman confirms what aggressive enforcement counsel already knew: Section 508(b) has teeth, and courts cannot dull them without explanation. If you've been fighting a non-compliant spouse, this case is your authority. If you've been on the receiving end of an inadequately explained fee reduction, you now have grounds to appeal.

The opposition just blinked. The only question is whether you're positioned to capitalize.

If you're facing enforcement issues in a high-asset dissolution—or defending against a fee petition that doesn't add up—schedule a consultation now. The other side is already calculating their next move. Make sure yours is better.

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.