Wright
Key Insights
Reversal Rate
100%
Case History
7 Cases
Case Outcomes
Recent Decisions
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.
In re Marriage of Kattner
In re Marriage of Kattner, 2023 IL App (1st) 220803‑U Parties - George Kattner (petitioner/appellant) v. Amanda Kattner (respondent/appellee). Key legal issues - Characterization and division of various assets (Ecolab 401(k), Amanda’s Voya 401(k), Wrightwood condominium, life‑insurance policy). - Enforceability of a unilateral “Renunciation and Disclaimer of Property” (RDP) executed by wife. - Validity/substantive unconscionability of an informal “Kitchen Table Agreement” (postnuptial) and its impact on asset division. - Whether trial court properly awarded attorney fees and honored parties’ stipulations. Holding / Outcome (short) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Appellate court affirmed that: (a) husband’s Ecolab 401(k) is marital; (b) Amanda’s RDP was unenforceable for lack of consideration; (c) trial court’s 60/40 overall marital split in Amanda’s favor; (d) denial of husband’s motion to reconsider. The court reversed trial court rulings that: (a) disregarded the parties’ stipulation that the condominium was marital; (b) characterized Amanda’s Voya 401(k) as nonmarital and husband’s life‑insurance as marital; (c) found the Kitchen Table Agreement substantively unconscionable; and (d) awarded attorney fees/costs to Amanda. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the corrections. Significant legal reasoning (concise) - Stipulations: The appellate court emphasized that the trial court erred by disregarding an explicit stipulation (the Wrightwood condo was marital) — stipulations control unless withdrawn or shown invalid. - Disclaimers/RDP: The RDP was treated as a renunciation made without consideration and thus had no effect in the dissolution distribution context; a unilateral disclaimer cannot be enforced to recharacterize marital assets where no bargained‑for consideration is proved. - Retirement and ERISA issues: Husband’s 401(k) was marital property because evidence supported marital accrual. The court corrected mischaracterizations of other retirement/life‑insurance assets where the record did not support trial court’s findings. - Postnuptial agreement: The trial court’s finding of substantive unconscionability was reversed for insufficient basis in the record. Practice implications - Honor stipulations: trial courts and counsel should respect and document stipulations; appellate courts will enforce them. - Draft renunciations carefully: a disclaimer intended to affect marital property must be supported by consideration and, for ERISA plans, proper procedural steps (QDROs/plan documents) and clear evidentiary foundation. - Retirement assets: fully develop evidence about pre‑marital vs. marital contributions and vesting; use QDROs and plan‑level procedures. - Record for unconscionability/fees: if seeking to avoid an agreement or to shift fees beyond caps, build a detailed evidentiary record demonstrating unfairness, coercion, or statutory grounds. - Expect remand where asset characterizations are inconsistent or stipulations disregarded; be precise in pleadings and trial exhibits.
Other 3rd District Judges
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Wright's overall affirm rate on family law appeals?
Wright has an overall affirm rate of 0% across 7 family law cases reviewed.
Which Illinois appellate district does Wright serve in?
Wright serves in the Illinois 3rd District Appellate Court.
How often are Wright's decisions reversed on appeal?
Wright has a 100% reversal rate, with 7 decisions reversed out of 7 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