In re Marriage of Fitz, 2021 IL App (2d) 210012-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Fitz, 2021 IL App (2d) 210012-U (2d Dist. Oct. 25, 2021) (Rule 23 order; nonprecedential). Petitioner/Third‑Party Respondent‑Appellant: Nicholas P. Fitz. Respondent: Maria M. Fitz. Third‑Party Petitioner‑Appellee: Weiler & Lengle, P.C.; Rory T. Weiler (attorney for firm).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in (a) striking a Supreme Court Rule 237 notice requiring the firm’s lawyer to appear and produce billing-related documents and (b) awarding attorney fees to a withdrawing firm under 750 ILCS 5/508.
2. Whether Rory could represent the law firm at the fee hearing (corporation appearing pro se).
3. Whether the appellate bond amount was unreasonable.

- Holding/outcome
Affirmed. The appellate bond challenge and the corporate‑representation challenge were forfeited. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the Rule 237 notice, and the fee award of $24,144.45 to Weiler & Lengle was affirmed.

- Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Procedural forfeiture: Fitz failed to timely challenge the trial court’s bond order in this court or use Rule 305’s procedures for altering stay conditions; he therefore forfeited review of the bond. Similarly, Fitz did not preserve the objection to Rory’s representation of the firm below, so that claim was forfeited.
- Rule 237 notice: The court concluded the notice was improperly used as a substitute for formal discovery because no prior discovery request had been made; striking such a notice lies within the trial court’s discretion and was not an abuse here.
- Fee award under §508: The petition complied with statutory/formal requirements (verified petition, contemporaneous timekeeping reflected in firm records, and redacted invoices to protect privilege). Rory’s uncontradicted testimony established the reasonableness and necessity of the charges given the case complexity; Fitz offered no contrary evidence (no testimony). The trial court found the testimony credible and the entries not excessive; that factual determination was not disturbed on appeal.

- Practice implications for litigators
- Preserve objections: raise corporate‑representation and discovery‑procedure objections below and include orders challenged in the notice of appeal.
- To oppose fee petitions effectively, serve appropriate discovery before relying on Rule 237; otherwise the court may strike such notices.
- Fee petitions under §508 should include a verified petition, contemporaneous billing records (keep unredacted invoices for client), and witness testimony tying entries to services to withstand incredibility attacks while protecting privilege via redactions when appropriate.
- Challenges to bond conditions must follow Rule 305 procedures and/or be pursued promptly in the reviewing court.