In re Marriage of Villela, 2019 IL App (1st) 190200-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Villela, 2019 IL App (1st) 190200-U - Here is a two-sentence summary of the article: The Illinois appellate court decision in In re Marriage of Villela highlights the importance of preserving a record during contested hearings and fee disputes, as a lack of documentation can result in an unfavorable "Foutch" presumption that affirms the trial court's decisions without review. The case offers three key strategic directives for high-asset dissolution litigants: ensuring a court reporter is present at all relevant hearings, making contemporaneous proffers on the record, and demanding written orders that itemize specific fees and findings.

Your opposition just blinked—and they don't even know it yet.

The moment opposing counsel walks into a fee dispute without a court reporter present, they've handed you a gift wrapped in procedural inevitability. In re Marriage of Villela isn't just another unpublished Rule 23 order collecting dust in the First District archives. It's a masterclass in how cases are won and lost long before the appellate briefs get filed.

Martha Villela learned this the hard way. And if you're litigating high-stakes dissolution matters in Cook County without obsessive attention to record preservation, you're setting yourself up to learn it too.

The Tactical Autopsy: What Happened in Villela

The facts are almost painfully straightforward. Post-dissolution, attorney Bradley Chelin sought to withdraw funds from his IOLTA account to satisfy unpaid fees. Martha Villela, appearing pro se on appeal, contested the withdrawal and the additional fee award, arguing that documentary evidence and Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5 (fee reasonableness) would demolish the claimed balance.

She may have been right. We'll never know.

The hearing stretched for multiple hours. No court reporter was present. When Villela attempted to supplement the appellate record with documents that weren't part of the trial court proceedings, the First District refused them outright.

The result? The Foutch presumption swallowed her appeal whole.

The Foutch Doctrine: Your Best Friend or Your Executioner

Foutch v. O'Bryant established a principle that Illinois appellate courts enforce with zero sentimentality: when the record on appeal is inadequate, reviewing courts presume the trial court acted correctly. Full stop.

This isn't a technicality. It's a structural reality of appellate practice. The First District in Villela couldn't assess whether the trial court properly weighed documentary evidence. It couldn't evaluate fee reasonableness under RPC 1.5. It couldn't do anything except affirm—because there was nothing to review.

Villela's substantive arguments may have had merit. Her documentary evidence may have been compelling. None of it mattered without a transcript.

Strategic Implications for High-Asset Dissolution

In complex marital estates—where fee disputes routinely involve six figures, where forensic accountants are billing alongside counsel, where the discovery war chest determines who survives attrition—Villela offers three non-negotiable directives:

1. The Court Reporter Is Non-Negotiable

Every contested hearing. Every status conference where substantive rulings might occur. Every fee petition argument. If you're not paying for a court reporter, you're gambling your appellate rights on the hope that nothing goes wrong at trial level.

Hope is not a litigation strategy.

In Cook County domestic relations, courtrooms are crowded and judges are efficient. Hearings move fast. Objections get ruled on in real-time. If you don't have a contemporaneous record of what evidence was presented, what objections were made, and what the court's reasoning was, you've surrendered your ability to challenge any of it.

2. Make Your Record Affirmatively

If a hearing proceeds without a reporter—sometimes it happens despite best efforts—you need to make a contemporaneous proffer on the record. State your objections clearly. Identify the exhibits you're offering. Get the court to acknowledge, on the record, what it's considering and what it's excluding.

Better yet: file a motion to reconstruct or settle the record under the Supreme Court Rules before the appeal window closes. Don't wait until you're briefing to discover you have nothing to brief from.

3. Written Orders Must Be Surgical

The order in Villela apparently didn't give the appellate court enough to work with even without a transcript. When you're litigating fee awards, IOLTA distributions, or any financial ruling, demand written orders that itemize:


The specific fees claimed
The payments credited
The basis for finding the fees reasonable
The priority of any distributions from held funds


Vague minute entries are appellate poison. If the trial court won't give you detailed findings, file a motion requesting them. Create the paper trail that makes meaningful review possible.

The Cyber-Law Intersection: Digital Evidence and Fee Disputes

Here's where Villela intersects with the modern dissolution battlefield.

Fee disputes increasingly turn on digital evidence: billing software exports, email chains documenting scope changes, text messages about payment arrangements, metadata showing when documents were created or modified. When opposing counsel claims certain work was performed or certain communications occurred, your ability to challenge those claims depends on having preserved both the digital evidence and the record of how that evidence was presented to the court.

If your opponent's fee petition relies on billing records that you believe are inaccurate or fabricated, you need the transcript showing your cross-examination of those records. You need the record of your forensic challenges. You need the court's ruling on admissibility.

Without that transcript, the appellate court will presume the trial court properly evaluated the digital evidence—even if you had a forensic expert ready to testify that the billing entries were created after the fact.

Cyber negligence isn't just a discovery weapon in the underlying dissolution. It's leverage in fee disputes too. But only if you preserve the record that lets you use it.

The Pro Se Trap

Villela also illustrates why pro se appellate practice in complex fee disputes is almost always a catastrophic miscalculation.

Martha Villela attempted to supplement the record with materials that weren't part of the trial court proceedings. This is a fundamental appellate error—and one that a represented party would have been counseled against. The rules governing appellate records exist for reasons that aren't obvious to non-practitioners, and violating them doesn't generate sympathy from reviewing courts.

If you're opposing a fee petition or challenging an IOLTA withdrawal, and you're contemplating handling the appeal yourself to save money, understand what you're risking. The procedural requirements are unforgiving. The Foutch presumption is absolute. One mistake in record preservation or appellate procedure can render your substantive arguments unreviewable.

For Attorneys Seeking Fee Recovery: Lessons from the Other Side

Villela also offers guidance for attorneys pursuing fee collection:

Document everything. Contemporaneous billing entries. Payment receipts. Written communications about scope and fees. The cleaner your documentation, the harder it is to challenge.

Request express findings. When the court rules on your fee petition, ask for specific findings on reasonableness. A detailed order protects you on appeal far better than a general grant.

Ensure a reporter is present for contested hearings. Yes, even when you're the one likely to prevail. The Foutch presumption works both ways—if your opponent can't appeal effectively, your victory is more secure.

The Bottom Line

In re Marriage of Villela is a cautionary tale disguised as a routine affirmance. The substantive legal issues—fee reasonableness under RPC 1.5, proper IOLTA withdrawals, documentary evidence disputes—never got reviewed because the procedural foundation wasn't there.

In high-stakes dissolution, the war is won in the details. The court reporter you hire. The written order you demand. The record you preserve. These aren't administrative afterthoughts. They're the infrastructure that makes your legal arguments matter.

Your opposition may have the better substantive position. They may have documentary evidence that would change everything. But if they didn't preserve the record, they've already lost—they just don't know it yet.

Don't be the one learning this lesson the hard way.

If you're facing a contested fee dispute, an IOLTA challenge, or any high-asset dissolution matter where the stakes demand precision, book a consultation now. The procedural traps are everywhere. The time to avoid them is before the hearing—not after the appeal is lost.

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.