Hyman
Key Insights
Affirmance Rate
36%
Reversal Rate
64%
Case History
11 Cases
Case Outcomes
Recent Decisions
In re Marriage of Hyman
1) Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Hyman, 2024 IL App (2d) 230352 (Dec. 24, 2024). - Petitioner-Appellee: Jeffrey R. Hyman. Respondent-Appellant: Rachel D. Hyman. 2) Key legal issues - Whether the trial court properly awarded, and properly sized, attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) after a party failed to comply with a dissolution judgment. - Whether the court erred in denying fees for defense of the appeal (508(a)(3) / 508(b)). - Whether statutory postjudgment interest should have been awarded on the fee/ enforcement award. 3) Holding / outcome - The appellate court vacated the trial court’s fee ruling and remanded for a new hearing. - The trial court’s reduction of Rachel’s requested §508(b) fees from $56,755.25 to $10,000 was vacated as an abuse of discretion because the court failed to provide adequate, admissible reasons for the reduction and relied on improper extrajudicial consultations. - The court rejected Jeffrey’s argument that Rachel forfeited her request for appellate fees and directed reconsideration on remand. The denial of postjudgment interest was also addressed on appeal and remanded for consideration consistent with applicable law. 4) Significant legal reasoning (concise) - Section 508(b) makes an award of costs and “reasonable attorney’s fees” mandatory where a party seeking enforcement prevails and the opponent’s noncompliance was “without compelling cause or justification.” A court’s discretion is limited to determining the reasonableness/amount of fees. Courts must look to conventional reasonableness factors (nature and importance of matter, novelty/difficulty, attorney skill and responsibility, customary charges, benefit to client, nexus between fees and amount at issue). - When a trial court substantially reduces a requested fee, it should explain the basis for the reduction on the record. Absent adequate explanation, reversal and remand are warranted. - A trial judge may rely on experience, but may not base decisions on private investigations or untested extrajudicial communications (here, the judge’s conversations with unnamed attorneys), because such inputs are not subject to cross‑examination or evidentiary testing. 5) Practice implications - Fee petitions: include detailed time entries, tie entries to tasks/issues, and quantify nexus to enforcement work to limit reductions. - Preservation: explicitly seek §508(b) relief for appellate work and develop record on reasonableness and necessity; oppose any reliance on the judge’s private consultations and request the judge articulate specific, record-based reasons for reductions. - Remand strategy: seek an evidentiary hearing on fees, present supporting testimony/affidavits on customary rates and necessity, and brief statutory postjudgment interest authorities if interest is sought.
In re Marriage of Hyman
- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Hyman, 2023 IL App (2d) 220347-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., May 3, 2023) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellant: Bruce D. Hyman. Respondent‑Appellee: Joanne L. Hyman. - Key legal issues 1) Whether the trial court erred by refusing to account for anticipated future reductions in husband’s disability income when setting current maintenance. 2) Proper effective date for the maintenance reduction. 3) Whether husband’s contractual obligation in the marital settlement agreement (MSA) to contribute to children’s higher‑education expenses could be reduced. 4) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding contribution to wife’s attorney fees. - Holding / outcome The Second District affirmed. The trial court did not err in (a) applying guideline maintenance using current income and declining to pre‑calculate reductions based on future benefit expirations; (b) setting the effective date of the maintenance reduction to January 1, 2021 (and ordering husband to pay his MSA share of a 2020 bonus); (c) enforcing husband’s agreed contributions to college expenses; and (d) awarding wife $30,567.94 toward attorney fees. - Significant legal reasoning (concise) - Modification framework: the court reiterated that a movant must first show a substantial change under §510(a‑5). Once modification is warranted, the amount/duration is normally calculated by the statutory guideline formulas in §504(b‑1)(1), unless the court expressly finds guidelines inappropriate and explains why. The trial court followed that structure. - Future income reductions: section §504(b‑1)(2) (consideration of §504(a) factors) applies only when the court rejects guideline calculation. Here the court properly used current incomes under the guideline formula and refused to speculate about income years away from termination of private disability benefits. - Effective date and remedies: the trial court changed the effective date to Jan 1, 2021 consistent with husband’s own closing request and ordered payment of the contractual share of the 2020 bonus. - MSA enforcement and fees: the court enforced the MSA college‑expense obligations based on husband’s demonstrated liquidity and expenditures and held awarding fees appropriate under the circumstances. - Practice implications (practical takeaways) - Courts will ordinarily use current income to compute guideline maintenance; avoid relying solely on anticipated future benefit expirations to obtain pre‑set future reductions. Bring concrete, contemporaneous evidence if seeking below‑guideline maintenance. - If you want prospective changes tied to known future events, present a full evidentiary record and ask the court explicitly to make findings rejecting guideline calculation. - Preserve arguments on effective retroactivity at trial (closing requests control). - MSAs allocating college costs are enforceable; evidence of the paying party’s discretionary spending can undercut requests to reduce contractual obligations. - Disparity in resources and litigation conduct remain factors supporting contribution to attorney fees—document resources and litigation expenses carefully.
In re Marriage of Hyman
- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Hyman, 2023 IL App (2d) 220041. Petitioner-Appellant: Jeffrey R. Hyman; Respondent-Appellee: Rachel D. Hyman. - Key legal issues 1) Whether stock options issued to husband during the marriage but held in his individual name were “disclosed” or otherwise excluded from the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) allocation scheme. 2) Whether the MSA’s undisclosed-asset provision permitted equal division of those options after dissolution where wife did not pursue further discovery before settlement. 3) Proper characterization (marital vs. separate) of vested and unvested options and the remedy for nondisclosure. - Holding / outcome The Second District affirmed the trial court. All 500 stock options awarded to Jeffrey during the marriage were marital assets subject to the MSA’s undisclosed-asset provision and 50% were awarded to Rachel. The trial court’s allocation (Rachel’s 50% valued at $246,597; payment to Rachel of $130,196 after taxes/expenses) was affirmed. - Significant legal reasoning - The appellate court treated the MSA as a contract (interpretation de novo) and reviewed factual findings for manifest-weight review. - The court rejected husband’s argument that the options were Strong Suit LLC’s nominal assets, concluding the option grants and agreements named Jeffrey individually (not Strong Suit), so the assets were his. - Husband repeatedly failed to disclose the existence of the options despite interrogatories, a court-ordered reporting obligation, and express MSA representations that he had “fully disclosed all of [his] assets.” His testimony at prove-up that he had disclosed all assets bolstered the trial court’s finding. - The court found no requirement to demonstrate bad faith; nondisclosure in the face of express representations and discovery duties triggered the undisclosed-asset clause and equal division, irrespective of whether some options were unvested at judgment. - Practice implications (concise) - Counsel must aggressively pursue discovery pre-settlement; failure to do so does not prevent later relief where the other spouse knowingly failed to disclose assets. - Draft MSAs to define “assets” (including contingent/unvested interests), specify valuation date(s), allocate tax consequences, and state remedies for nondisclosure. - When clients hold or receive equity/option grants, confirm whether grants were made to the individual or an entity, and require full documentary disclosure (grant notices, option agreements, vesting schedules). - Advise clients that holding assets in a personal name to “avoid disclosure/tax issues” may not insulate them from being characterized as marital property. - Preserve prove-up record of disclosure representations and consider express carve-outs or escrow mechanisms for contingent postjudgment assets.
Other 1st District Judges
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Hyman's overall affirm rate on family law appeals?
Hyman has an overall affirm rate of 36% across 11 family law cases reviewed.
Which Illinois appellate district does Hyman serve in?
Hyman serves in the Illinois 1st District Appellate Court.
How often are Hyman's decisions reversed on appeal?
Hyman has a 64% reversal rate, with 7 decisions reversed out of 11 total cases.
Need Strategic Insights for Your Appeal?
Get deeper analytics, outcome forecasts, and compare judges side-by-side with a Professional subscription.
Upgrade to Professional