In re Marriage of Bonzani, 2023 IL App (3d) 220026-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Bonzani, 2023 IL App (3d) 220026‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Oct. 20, 2023) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellee: Phyllis Bonzani, n/k/a Phyllis Sporlein. Respondent‑Appellant: Robert Anthony Bonzani.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court correctly calculated prepetition arrears where the contemnor later filed bankruptcy and the creditor received bankruptcy distributions.
2. Whether an appeal of a lump‑sum purge payment is moot after bankruptcy distributions.
3. Scope of a trial court’s leave to seek attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) in post‑dissolution contempt enforcement—whether fees may include work extraneous to the rule‑to‑show‑cause proceedings.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court: affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. It held the trial court erred in calculating prepetition arrears by (a) improperly considering postpetition liabilities and (b) failing to account for partial satisfaction of prepetition arrears via bankruptcy distributions. The appeal as to the lump‑sum purge was moot because the purge was effectively satisfied. The court upheld the trial court’s grant of leave to seek §508(b) fees but limited recoverable fees to those incurred in the underlying rule‑to‑show‑cause/contempt proceedings; fees for unrelated matters were not recoverable. Remanded for recalculation of arrears.

- Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
The court emphasized that arrearage calculations must reflect the state of obligations as of the relevant prepetition date and must credit payments that satisfied those prepetition obligations (here, 100% payment of the arrearage claim in bankruptcy). The trial court erred by folding postpetition liabilities (liquidation proceeds and general unsecured claims treated in bankruptcy) into the prepetition arrearage figure and by not reducing the judgment by the bankruptcy distributions. Because the contemnor’s bankruptcy distributions satisfied the court‑ordered purge, the appeal on the purge provision was rendered moot. On attorney fees, the May 2016 order properly reserved Phyllis’s right to petition under §508(b); however, fee petitions must be confined to services necessary to the contempt enforcement and may not encompass unrelated fee claims (nor duplicate amounts already addressed in bankruptcy).

- Practice implications for family law practitioners
- When enforcing post‑dissolution support/property obligations, account for bankruptcy filings: obtain and subpoena bankruptcy distributions and proofs of claim to establish credits and prioritization.
- Insist on explicit trial‑court accounting/credits for any postpetition satisfaction of prepetition arrears before entering new purge or arrearage orders.
- When requesting §508(b) fees, narrowly tailor records and requests to the contempt/rule‑to‑show‑cause work; segregate fees for related but distinct matters to avoid disallowance.
- Recognize that purge orders can become moot if bankruptcy or other collections satisfy the obligation—preserve issues accordingly.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 nonprecedential order; persuasive but limited precedential weight.