In re Marriage of Galowich, 2019 IL App (1st) 162270-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Galowich, No. 16-2270, 17-2930, 18-0353 (cons.), 2019 IL App (1st) 162270-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Mar. 29, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Joni Santini Galowich (n/k/a Joni Santini). Respondent-Appellant: Jeffrey Galowich.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in modifying (reducing but not terminating) spousal maintenance and in failing to make “specific findings” tied to statutory §504(a) factors.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion or violated due process in awarding interim attorney fees on appeal (prospective fees).
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees as a discovery sanction for failure to timely produce a financial affidavit.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in all respects. Trial court’s reduction of maintenance from $7,500 to $5,000 per month (refusing termination) was upheld. The award of $53,000 in interim attorney fees to petitioner and a $4,668.95 fee award as a discovery sanction were affirmed.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Findings requirement: The court reiterated that absence of formulaic “specific findings” is not reversible where the record enables meaningful appellate review (citing Blum v. Koster and related authority). Here, extensive prior proceedings and two detailed written orders (24- and 14-page orders) provided an adequate factual and analytical record addressing §504(a) factors.
- Standard of review: Maintenance amount/duration and fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion. The appellate court found no abuse: trial court considered parties’ incomes, needs, children’s expenses, prior reductions, and the statutory factors, and reasonably declined to terminate maintenance while reducing it.
- Guidelines: The opinion recognizes recent statutory guidelines (2015–2016 amendments) but holds that deviation from guideline maintenance is permissible where court articulates and record supports its reasoning.
- Interim fees and sanctions: Trial court did not violate due process by awarding interim fees without additional evidentiary hearing given the record; the amounts awarded were within the court’s discretion. The discovery sanction was upheld where respondent produced the financial affidavit late without adequate justification.

5. Practice implications
- Preserve a complete financial record: appellate courts will uphold maintenance decisions when the record (not just a written checklist) supports statutory-factor analysis.
- Make and document explicit reasons when deviating from statutory guidelines—detailed written findings remain best practice.
- Expect deference on maintenance and fee decisions—abuse-of-discretion is a high bar.
- Seek prompt compliance with discovery (especially financial affidavits); courts will impose and sustain fee sanctions absent convincing justification (document illness, delays).
- Consider seeking (and defending against) interim appellate/preservation fees; courts can award substantial prospective fees when record shows need and ability to pay.