In re Marriage of Field, 2019 IL App (5th) 160405‑U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Field, No. 5‑16‑0405 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Mar. 22, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Della R.K. Field.
- Respondent‑Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Dennis M. Field.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly: (a) awarded Della attorney fees; (b) calculated the fee award; (c) construed the parties’ on‑the‑record agreement about Dennis paying “living expenses” while he resided in the marital home (Jan. 11–May 31, 2013); and (d) excluded a university tuition/fee obligation as a revocable gift rather than part of the agreement.

3. Holding/outcome
- Appellate court affirmed that Della was entitled to an attorney fee award and that the fee award was not an abuse of discretion; it affirmed the award at 40% of Della’s fees ($17,209).
- The court affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of various items as not encompassed by “living expenses” and affirmed ordering reimbursement of a $6,500 deposit that predated the parties’ agreement.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred in treating the college tuition and fees as a revocable gift and modified the order to require Dennis to reimburse Della for that tuition/fees amount (one‑third of the spring 2013 University of Illinois bill — $6,219.60).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Attorney fees: the trial court’s award was supported by findings of substantial disparity in resources, the complexity and contested nature of the case, Dennis’s limited disclosure and discovery non‑compliance, and the reasonableness/necessity of the fees. Under the abuse‑of‑discretion standard, the appellate court concluded the percentage reduction (from trial court’s earlier 45% to 40%) was within the court’s discretion.
- Living expenses/contract interpretation: the court confined recovery to what the parties actually agreed to on the record and in the marital settlement agreement; luxury items and unrelated charges (cell upgrades, gifts, certain repairs) were excluded. However, the on‑the‑record promise to pay “approximately a third” of the spring tuition (and Della’s clarification that “fees” were included) meant the tuition/fees were part of the bargain and not a mere gift.

5. Practice implications (short)
- Reduce ambiguity: place detailed terms (scope of “living expenses,” inclusion/exclusion of tuition, fees, housing, specific dollar caps) on the record and in the written settlement to avoid later disputes.
- Preserve fee requests: plead and argue entitlement to fees timely and include detailed time records and proof of need/disparity.
- Discovery compliance matters: non‑compliance can support a client’s fee claim.
- Document timing of deposits/payments relative to agreements — pre‑agreement payments may require reimbursement.
- Treat oral promises on the record as binding when later reduced to a signed agreement; clarification (e.g., “fees included”) is critical.