In re Marriage of Davis, 2019 IL App (3d) 170873‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Davis, 2019 IL App (3d) 170873‑U (Order filed Apr. 30, 2019) — non‑precedential under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23.
- Petitioner‑Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Michael C. Davis.
- Respondent‑Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Leann L. Davis (n/k/a Godwin).

2) Key legal issues
- When did the 36‑month maintenance obligation under the parties’ post‑nuptial agreement (PNA) commence — at filing of the dissolution petition (Oct. 2013) or at the trial court’s temporary maintenance order (Mar. 9, 2015)?
- What attorney fees is petitioner obligated to pay under the PNA and the Act (750 ILCS 5/501), including (a) fees charged by respondent’s early counsel (Parker & Parker), (b) fees charged by Linda Watson (retained while respondent challenged the PNA), and (c) later counsel (Butler, Giraudo & Meister)?
- Whether petitioner is entitled to credit for a prior $5,000 interim fees payment.

3) Holding / outcome
- Appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that petitioner’s 36‑month maintenance obligation began March 9, 2015 (when the court ordered temporary maintenance), not Oct. 2013.
- The trial court’s denial of recovery for attorney Watson’s fees (totaling $28,089.38) and its failure to announce a ruling on petitioner’s request for credit for the earlier $5,000 interim payment were erroneous; these matters required further resolution.
- The trial court properly awarded petitioner payment of uncontested attorney fees of $4,519.35 (Parker & Parker) and $14,219 (Butler, Giraudo & Meister), for a combined $18,738.35; it also entered a $12,000 judgment for missed maintenance payments for Dec. 2017–Feb. 2018.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Maintenance start date: the court relied on the March 9, 2015 temporary maintenance order and the content of petitioner’s March 6, 2015 financial affidavit (which did not treat prior transfers as maintenance). The court found petitioner’s later assertion that maintenance began in Oct. 2013 contradicted his earlier sworn financial disclosure; the record showed the issue was litigated and the parties had notice, so no improper sua sponte ruling occurred.
- Attorney fees: the trial court awarded undisputed fees but declined to adjudicate Watson’s billed fees because there was insufficient evidence (Watson did not testify and documentary proof was incomplete due to a subpoena dispute and cancelled hearing). The appellate court concluded the trial court erred by not resolving whether those fees were recoverable and by failing to rule on credit for the earlier interim payment.

5) Practice implications
- Draft PNAs with explicit trigger events for maintenance (petition vs. court order) to avoid later factual disputes.
- Ensure financial affidavits consistently reflect payments characterized as maintenance or reimbursements — discrepancies can be determinative.
- Preserve fee claims with live testimony and complete documentary proof; comply promptly with subpoenas to avoid forfeiture of fee recovery.
- When obtaining interim fee orders, secure clear rulings about how interim payments will be credited in final allocations.
- Remember Rule 23 status: this decision is non‑precedential but instructive on evidentiary/record issues and fee‑award procedure in Illinois family law.