In re Marriage of Galati, 2021 IL App (3d) 200361-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Galati, 2021 IL App (3d) 200361-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Oct. 7, 2021, Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Christy A. Galati. Respondent‑Appellee: Claudio Galati. (Order non‑precedential under Supreme Court Rule 23.)

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) where petitioner repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and discovery.
- Whether fee entries were sufficiently descriptive and whether fees incurred after an earlier contempt finding were recoverable.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s award of $22,340.13 to respondent’s former counsel as reasonable and properly attributable to petitioner’s noncompliance.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Statute and burden: Section 508(b) mandates payment of costs and reasonable attorney fees where noncompliance with an order is “without compelling cause or justification,” and noncompliance with discovery is presumptively without justification (750 ILCS 5/508(b)). The party who violated the order bears the burden to show justification.
- The record documented numerous petitions, motions to compel, and at least one contempt adjudication based on petitioner’s failure to pay mortgage, taxes, insurance, hospital bill and comply with orders about the children’s physician. The court found petitioner's explanations (physician license issues; claimed inability to pay due to withheld funds) insufficient to rebut the presumption.
- Fees after the March 2015 contempt finding were recoverable: section 508(b) permits fee awards for noncompliance beyond the specific conduct underlying a contempt finding and for costs generated by conduct that needlessly increased litigation expense (e.g., delay, harassment).
- Billing sufficiency: the appellate court found the billing statement adequately itemized tasks and time; the trial judge reasonably judged the hourly rate ($250) customary and inexpensive for the community. Standard of review was abuse of discretion.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Preserve and develop a clear record of noncompliance and associated attorney time to support a §508(b) petition; itemized contemporaneous time entries are critical.
- Noncomplying parties must articulate compelling cause on the record; generalized financial excuses are risky.
- Fees incurred after an initial contempt can still be recoverable when additional noncompliance or discovery abuse continues.
- Trial courts may rely on their own experience to assess reasonableness of rates; challenge rates with community comparators and specific objections.
- Even without an appellee brief, appellate courts may decide straightforward records; timely, specific objections at trial remain paramount.