In re Guardianship of H.D., 2021 IL App (4th) 200434-U

In re Guardianship of H.D. and I.B., 2021 IL App (4th) 200434‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Guardianship of H.D. and I.B., 2021 IL App (4th) 200434‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., filed Apr. 19, 2021).
- Petitioners/Appellants: Nichelle and Brad Drew (aunt and uncle, guardianship petitioners).
- Respondents/Appellees: Nicholas D., Steven B., and Paige B. (parents of the minors).
- Trial court: Circuit Court of Douglas County (Judge Richard L. Broch Jr.).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 for allegedly baseless guardianship and related pleadings.
- Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on entitlement or amount of Rule 137 fees.
- Whether fees awarded included work on unrelated matters.
- Whether additional sanctions under Rule 375 should be imposed against petitioners.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed: the trial court did not err in awarding Rule 137 sanctions to both fathers (judgments of $1,398.50 to Nicholas; $2,707.16 to Steven; and an additional $390 to Nicholas on reconsideration).
- The court declined to impose further sanctions under Rule 375.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Threshold: the trial court permissibly relied on divorce‑case materials and docket entries because the parties and the court repeatedly referenced those proceedings and petitioners themselves put them at issue; under the invited‑error doctrine petitioners cannot now complain.
- Procedural posture: petitioners failed to file responsive pleadings to the fee requests and did not timely preserve objections to fee amounts—forfeiture applies.
- Evidentiary hearing: no per se requirement where fee motions are supported by affidavits/records and the opposing party had notice and opportunity to respond. The court’s independent review of public docket entries and the absence of contrary evidence was sufficient to find pleadings lacked a factual/legal basis or were interposed improperly under Rule 137.
- Standard of review: fee awards under Rule 137 are discretionary; no abuse of discretion shown.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Do not file guardianship petitions (or related pleadings) without a solid factual and legal basis; opposing parties can and will seek Rule 137 sanctions based on public docket evidence.
- Timely and specific written responses to fee motions (including affidavits and evidentiary requests) are critical to avoid forfeiture.
- If seeking Rule 137 fees, support requests with contemporaneous billing, affidavits, and citations to record/docket entries; courts may rely on public filings.
- Be mindful of perceived conflicts or tactical inconsistencies (e.g., alleging parental unfitness then representing that parent elsewhere)—such conduct can buttress a Rule 137 claim.
- Requests for additional sanctions (Rule 375) will be scrutinized; appellate courts may decline to extend sanctions beyond Rule 137 where not justified.