In re Marriage of Panchev

Overview

The Third District reversed in part a Du Page County circuit court's award of $4,000 in attorney fees under section 508(b) of the IMDMA, finding the court abused its discretion by reducing the requested fees (totaling ~$10,231) without adequate explanation. The court affirmed the denial of fees related to an agreed order violation that was resolved without court proceedings, holding section 508(b) requires an actual enforcement proceeding.

Key Facts

• Post-dissolution disputes involved violations of the MSA, parenting plan, and an October 2023 agreed order regarding property vacating obligations.
• Teodora failed to vacate the Elmhurst property on time; the issue was resolved through attorney emails/calls without court filings.
• Michael filed two petitions (May 2024 and October 2024) to enforce the MSA and parenting plan; the court found Teodora violated provisions "without compelling cause or justification."
• Michael's attorney billed $7,994 and $2,237.50 for the two petitions at $250/hour—a rate the court called "extremely low." The court awarded only $4,000 total without explaining the reduction.
• Teodora interrupted the hearing to state she could not afford to pay the fees.

Procedural History

Du Page County Circuit Court (18th Judicial Circuit), Judge Kenton J. Skarin presiding. Dissolution entered May 2023. Michael filed a three-count section 508(b) fee petition in June 2025. The court awarded $4,000 of approximately $10,231 requested. Michael appealed to the Third District Appellate Court.

Holdings

1. Reversed and remanded: The circuit court abused its discretion by reducing the mandatory fee award to less than half the amount requested without providing any specific explanation for the reduction. (Standard: abuse of discretion.)
2. Affirmed: The court properly denied fees for the agreed order violation because no enforcement proceeding occurred—section 508(b) requires a court proceeding aimed at enforcement.
3. Forfeited: Michael's argument that the court had inherent authority to enforce its orders was not raised below and was therefore forfeited.

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/508(b): Fee awards are mandatory when a party prevails in an enforcement proceeding and noncompliance was without compelling cause or justification. In re Marriage of Hyman, 2024 IL App (2d) 230352.
• The court's only discretion is whether the fees are reasonable, not whether to award them. Kaiser v. MEPC American Properties (factors: skill, difficulty, customary charges, benefit, etc.).
• A court must expose its "thought process" when reducing fees, especially when awarding substantially less than requested. Robinson v. Point One Toyota, 2017 IL App (1st) 151124.
• Inability to pay is not a permissible factor under section 508(b). In re Marriage of Wiley.
• Section 508(b) requires an actual enforcement proceeding; out-of-court resolution is insufficient. In re Marriage of Kent, 267 Ill. App. 3d 142.

Practical Implications

• Document fee reductions: When reducing a 508(b) fee request, trial courts must articulate specific reasons on the record—practitioners should request findings if the court does not volunteer them.
• File enforcement proceedings: To recover fees under 508(b), you must initiate a court proceeding. Resolving violations informally forecloses 508(b) relief. Consider including contractual fee-shifting language in agreed orders and filing a breach-of-contract or separate motion to preserve fee claims.
• Preserve arguments below: Michael's inherent-authority argument was forfeited—always raise alternative legal theories at the trial level.
• Opposing party's inability to pay is irrelevant under 508(b); object if the court considers it.

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 unpublished order with limited precedential value under Rule 23(e)(1). The court expressly stated it offered "no opinion on the reasonableness of the fees"—the merits of the fee amount remain open on remand. The holding on the agreed order is narrow: it addresses only section 508(b) and does not foreclose contractual or inherent-authority theories for recovering fees for out-of-court enforcement efforts (those theories were forfeited here).