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

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Hyman, 2024 IL App (2d) 230352 - A landmark Illinois appellate ruling in In re Marriage of Hyman exposes a critical vulnerability: trial courts that slash attorney fee awards without justification—or worse, base decisions on private, off-record consultations—now face swift reversal. The decision reinforces that Section 508(b) fee-shifting is mandatory, not discretionary, transforming meticulous billing documentation and rate verification into powerful weapons for practitioners pursuing noncompliant parties in post-decree enforcement battles.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and if you've been chasing a noncompliant ex through post-decree enforcement, In re Marriage of Hyman just handed you a blueprint for making them pay. Literally.

The Second District's December 2024 decision isn't just another fee dispute. It's a surgical strike against trial courts that gut legitimate fee requests without explanation—and a warning shot to anyone who thinks they can ignore a dissolution judgment without consequence.

Let me break down what this means for your case, your strategy, and your leverage.

The Setup: When Noncompliance Meets Judicial Overreach

Rachel Hyman prevailed in enforcing the dissolution judgment against Jeffrey. Under Section 508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, that should have been the end of the analysis: she won, his noncompliance lacked compelling justification, and fees were mandatory.

Her counsel submitted detailed billing records totaling $56,755.25 for the enforcement work. The trial court awarded $10,000.

No explanation. No articulated basis. Just an 82% haircut.

Worse, the trial judge admitted to consulting with unnamed attorneys outside the record—private conversations that influenced the fee determination but were never subject to cross-examination or evidentiary testing.

The appellate court vacated the entire fee ruling and sent it back for a proper hearing.

The Legal Architecture: Why Section 508(b) Isn't Discretionary

Here's what your opposition—and sometimes even the bench—forgets: Section 508(b) creates a mandatory fee-shifting mechanism when you prevail in enforcement proceedings and the other side's noncompliance was "without compelling cause or justification."

The court's discretion is limited to one question: What is reasonable?

Not whether to award fees. Not whether you "really" needed that many hours. The statute says costs and reasonable attorney's fees shall be assessed. That's legislative command, not judicial suggestion.

The Hyman court reinforced that reasonableness analysis must track conventional factors:


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


When a trial court slashes a fee request by more than 80% without explaining which factors justified the reduction, that's not discretion—that's abuse of discretion. And the Second District said so explicitly.

The Extrajudicial Problem: Private Consultations Are Fatal

This is where the case gets sharp.

The trial judge referenced conversations with unnamed attorneys about what fees should look like. Those conversations happened outside the courtroom, outside the record, and outside any opportunity for challenge.

The appellate court's response was unequivocal: a judge may draw on general experience, but may not base rulings on private investigations or untested extrajudicial communications.

Why? Because evidence that isn't subject to cross-examination isn't evidence at all. It's rumor wearing a robe.

If you're on the receiving end of a fee reduction that smells like the judge "just knows" what's reasonable, demand the basis be stated on the record. If the court references outside sources, you've got appellate ammunition.

Strategic Takeaways: Building the Fee Record That Survives Scrutiny

The Hyman decision isn't just about appellate correction—it's a roadmap for building fee petitions that can't be arbitrarily gutted.

1. Granular Time Entries Are Non-Negotiable

Block billing is a gift to your opponent. Every entry should identify the specific task, the issue addressed, and the time spent. "Review documents and prepare for hearing – 4.5 hours" invites reduction. "Review 47-page financial disclosure for inconsistencies with prior sworn statements; draft subpoena for banking records; prepare examination outline for 2/15 hearing – 4.5 hours" survives it.

2. Quantify the Enforcement Nexus

Section 508(b) fees must relate to enforcement work. Segregate enforcement-related time from other post-decree matters in your billing records. If you can show the court exactly which hours went to chasing compliance, you eliminate the "some of this wasn't really enforcement" objection before it's raised.

3. Support Your Rates

Affidavits from other practitioners establishing customary rates in your jurisdiction aren't optional—they're armor. The Hyman court emphasized that reasonableness factors include customary charges in the community. Document them.

4. Preserve Appellate Fee Claims

The appellate court rejected Jeffrey's argument that Rachel forfeited her request for fees incurred defending the appeal. But the lesson is clear: explicitly request Section 508(b) relief for appellate work, and develop the record on reasonableness and necessity before the appeal concludes. Don't assume the trial court will figure it out on remand.

5. Demand Postjudgment Interest

The Hyman decision also addressed statutory postjudgment interest on fee awards, remanding for consideration consistent with applicable law. If you're awarded fees, interest accrues. If the court doesn't address it, you've left money on the table.

The Cyber-Law Intersection: Digital Evidence in Enforcement

Enforcement disputes increasingly turn on digital evidence—bank records, cryptocurrency wallets, social media posts contradicting sworn financial disclosures, metadata exposing backdated documents.

When your opponent claims they "can't" comply with a judgment requiring asset disclosure, their digital footprint often tells a different story. A forensic analysis of devices, cloud accounts, and financial platforms can transform "I don't have it" into "I hid it here."

And here's the leverage angle: cyber negligence in discovery—spoliation of electronic evidence, failure to preserve text messages, "accidental" deletion of financial apps—creates independent sanctions exposure. That exposure becomes settlement leverage before you ever reach the fee petition stage.

The attorney who understands both the family law enforcement mechanisms and the digital evidence landscape doesn't just win—they win faster, with more complete relief.

The Remand Playbook: What Happens Next in Cases Like This

When a fee ruling gets vacated and remanded, you're not starting over—you're starting with advantage. The appellate court has already identified the trial court's errors. Your job is to ensure those errors aren't repeated.

Request an evidentiary hearing. Don't let the remand become a paper exercise. Live testimony on rates, necessity, and reasonableness creates a record that's harder to dismiss.

Present supporting affidavits. Other practitioners attesting to customary rates. Expert testimony on the complexity of the enforcement issues. Documentation of the opponent's obstructive conduct that necessitated the fees.

Brief the interest question. If you're seeking statutory postjudgment interest, don't leave it to implication. Cite the applicable statutes, calculate the amount, and make the court rule on it explicitly.

Object to any extrajudicial reliance. If the judge starts referencing what they've "heard" about reasonable fees, stop the proceeding and make your objection clear. You've already won that issue once on appeal. Make them win it again.

The Power Dynamic: Why This Case Matters Beyond the Hymans

Every high-net-worth dissolution involves post-decree enforcement risk. Assets get hidden. Obligations get "forgotten." Compliance becomes a negotiation rather than a requirement.

Section 508(b) exists to change that calculus. When noncompliance costs more than compliance, behavior changes. But the statute only works if courts actually award the fees—and award them at levels that reflect the real cost of enforcement.

Hyman reinforces that trial courts can't gut fee requests without explanation. It reinforces that private judicial consultations are improper. It reinforces that the mandatory language in the statute means what it says.

For the practitioner handling enforcement, this is leverage. For the client being dragged through unnecessary litigation by a noncompliant ex, this is justice.

For the opposing party who thought they could ignore a judgment and negotiate fees down to nuisance value? The appellate court just told them they were wrong.

The Bottom Line

If you're enforcing a dissolution judgment against a noncompliant party, In re Marriage of Hyman is your authority for full fee recovery. Build the record. Document the hours. Support the rates. And if the trial court cuts your request without explanation, you now have a Second District opinion that says that's reversible error.

If you're defending against enforcement, understand that the fee exposure is real and mandatory. Settlement before the fee petition is filed is almost always cheaper than litigation after.

And if you're sitting on a case where the trial court already gutted your fee request without adequate explanation? You may have appellate options you haven't explored.

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

Schedule a consultation to discuss your enforcement strategy and fee recovery options. The statute is mandatory. Your approach should be surgical.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, ISC2 CC, Google Cybersecurity Professional Certificate). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Case Assessment

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.