In re Marriage of Kestner-Pennell

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Kestner‑Pennell, 2024 IL App (4th) 230611‑U. Petitioner‑Appellee: Elizabeth T. Kestner‑Pennell. Respondent‑Appellant: Russell T. Pennell.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court properly determined and allocated attorney fees for petitioner’s multiple counsel.
2. Whether retroactive child support and maintenance awards (and their start dates/duration) were proper, including whether maintenance duration was constrained by any written agreement.
3. Whether the court abused discretion in awarding maintenance above guideline amounts.

- Holding / outcome (short)
The appellate court affirmed most orders (including the award of retroactive maintenance/child support, the award of maintenance beyond guidelines, and allocation of attorney‑fee responsibility), but reversed the trial court’s determination of the reasonable amount of fees billed by Kraft, Wood & Kelly, LLC (Kraft, LLC) as against the manifest weight of the evidence and remanded for further proceedings limited to that issue.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Attorney fees: The court emphasized that a determination of reasonable attorney fees must be supported by competent evidence. The record showed that key billing exhibits for Kraft, LLC were excluded without testimony or an adequate offer of proof; therefore the trial court’s dollar determination for Kraft’s fees lacked evidentiary support and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. By contrast, attorney Wright’s fee petition had sufficient support for the court to quantify fees ($5,974.97) and allocate responsibility (80% to respondent, 20% to petitioner), and that allocation was within the court’s discretion.
- Retroactive maintenance/support and duration: The court reviewed section 504 factors (750 ILCS 5/504) and the record showing petitioner’s lack of income attributable to full‑time care of the parties’ special‑needs children. Those facts supported retroactive awards and a fixed‑term maintenance award that exceeded guideline presumptions. The trial court did not err in finding no enforceable written agreement limiting maintenance duration where none was shown.
- Standard of review: factual findings on fees are reviewed for manifest weight; allocation and awards of maintenance/child support are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Foundation for fee petitions: always provide competent evidence (live testimony, verified petitions, affidavits, and admit itemized bills through sponsoring witness). If an exhibit may be excluded, make an offer of proof.
- Preserve the record: obtain and include transcripts for all hearings; missing transcripts may hamper appellate review.
- When seeking retroactive maintenance/support or above‑guideline maintenance, develop a clear factual record on income, caregiving responsibilities (especially for disabled children), and statutory 504 factors.
- If parties claim a maintenance term by agreement, produce the written agreement or admissible evidence establishing its existence.
- Be prepared that allocation of fees between parties is discretionary but must rest on supported factual findings; lack of evidentiary support invites remand.