In re Marriage of Buonincontro, 2022 IL App (2d) 210380

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Buonincontro, 2022 IL App (2d) 210380. Petitioner/Counterrespondent-Appellant: Robert Buonincontro. Respondent/Counterpetitioner-Appellee: Paridhi Buonincontro.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s post‑dissolution petition for contribution to attorney fees and costs under 750 ILCS 5/503(j) and 508(a).
2) What proof is required to establish reasonableness, necessity, and the paying party’s inability to absorb fees (including application of the statutory factors in §§ 503(d) and 504).
3) Admissibility and weight of billing evidence and supporting affidavits.

- Holding/outcome
The Second District affirmed the trial court’s denial of Robert’s petition for contribution to attorney fees and costs.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The trial court conducted (and the appellate court accepted) a statute‑guided, fact‑intensive inquiry into both parties’ financial resources and the reasonableness/necessity of the fees. The court cited In re Marriage of Heroy, 2017 IL 120205, and applied § 508(a)’s requirement to consider financial resources together with the § 503(d) property division factors and the § 504 maintenance factors. Although it found Robert’s lawyer (Minton) competent, the trial court concluded the litigation was not unusually novel or complex and highlighted a substantial disparity in billed amounts ($194,281 claimed by Robert vs. $67,603 billed by Paridhi). The court rejected Minton’s $500–$550 hourly rate as excessive for McHenry County, adopting a $350 benchmark and making an initial 30% reduction. The court further pared billed time for vague or bulk entries, excessive or unexplained email/review conferences, unclear delegation to an attorney (Richard Miller) who was not properly presented, and entries for which necessity or connection to the litigation was not shown. The court also sustained a hearsay objection to an affidavit from the third attorney and relied on the admitted billing records and testimony. On this record the trial court found Robert did not sustain his burden to prove the full claimed contribution; the appellate court held those credibility and fee‑quantification choices were within the trial court’s discretion.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- File fee petitions timely (dissolution order here reserved fee petitions for 30 days).
- Present contemporaneous, itemized, and contemporaneously contemporized billing records; avoid “bulk” entries and vague descriptions.
- Establish local market rates with admissible proof (benchmarks, comparable fee affidavits); be prepared to justify higher rates for the county where the case is heard.
- Put on evidence of client benefit and necessity of specific work.
- Ensure evidentiary foundations for any third‑party billing affidavits (lay witnesses or live testimony preferred).
- Expect trial courts to reduce or deny awards where rates, hours or necessity are not proven; appellate review is deferential (abuse of discretion).