In re Marriage of Fitz, 2021 IL App (2d) 200479-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Fitz, 2021 IL App (2d) 200479-U (Order filed Apr. 1, 2021) (Rule 23(b) order — nonprecedential except as allowed).
- Parties: Petitioner — Nicholas P. Fitz; Respondent/Appellant — Maria M. Fitz; Third‑Party Petitioner‑Appellee — Peskind Law Firm (Steven Peskind).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether it was improper for Steven Peskind to represent his law firm at a fee hearing (corporation practice issue).
- Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence supporting the firm’s fee petition (hearsay, foundation, statutory verification/affidavit defects).
- Whether the attorney‑fee award was reasonable (claims of excessive time, lack of specificity, double billing, improper travel charges).

3. Holding/outcome
- Majority of Maria’s arguments were either forfeited for failure to raise them adequately in the trial court or forfeited on appeal for lack of proper briefing/record.
- On the preserved issue — reasonableness of fees — the appellate court affirmed: the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to Peskind.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Forfeiture: Appellate review refused for issues not raised below (Enoch) and for arguments unsupported by legal citation/record (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341; Gakuba). Incomplete record resolved against appellant (Foutch).
- Standard of review: Fee determinations under 750 ILCS 5/508(c)(3) are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Reasonableness analysis: Court applied familiar factors (hours, attorney skill/standing, difficulty, subject matter importance, responsibility, local rates, client benefit — citing In re Marriage of Patel & Sines‑Patel). Peskind presented retainer, detailed billing records, and testimony about complexity and staffing. Maria offered little counter‑evidence.
- Travel/time and double billing: Travel time is not per se nonbillable — it may be disallowed if excessive or unreasonable (Losurdo); trial court credited testimony that entries were for court attendance/preparation, not improper travel or double billing. Trial court may rely on pleadings, affidavits, and its experience in fixing fees (Welsh).

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Preserve objections at the hearing (including corporate appearance/pro se issues) and put rulings on the record.
- Develop appellate issues with record cites and legal authority per Rule 341 or risk forfeiture.
- For fee petitions: maintain contemporaneous, itemized billing showing staff roles, division of labor (to rebut double‑billing allegations), and clear entries for travel vs. court attendance. Have an admissible witness authenticate business records and (if used) a proper statutory verification.
- Recognize appellate deference to trial courts on fee reasonableness — bring substantive counter‑evidence at the hearing to overturn awards.