In re Marriage of Hyman, 2024 IL App (2d) 230352

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Hyman, 2024 IL App (2d) 230352 (Dec. 24, 2024).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Jeffrey R. Hyman. Respondent-Appellant: Rachel D. Hyman.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly awarded, and properly sized, attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) after a party failed to comply with a dissolution judgment.
- Whether the court erred in denying fees for defense of the appeal (508(a)(3) / 508(b)).
- Whether statutory postjudgment interest should have been awarded on the fee/ enforcement award.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court vacated the trial court’s fee ruling and remanded for a new hearing.
- The trial court’s reduction of Rachel’s requested §508(b) fees from $56,755.25 to $10,000 was vacated as an abuse of discretion because the court failed to provide adequate, admissible reasons for the reduction and relied on improper extrajudicial consultations.
- The court rejected Jeffrey’s argument that Rachel forfeited her request for appellate fees and directed reconsideration on remand. The denial of postjudgment interest was also addressed on appeal and remanded for consideration consistent with applicable law.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Section 508(b) makes an award of costs and “reasonable attorney’s fees” mandatory where a party seeking enforcement prevails and the opponent’s noncompliance was “without compelling cause or justification.” A court’s discretion is limited to determining the reasonableness/amount of fees. Courts must look to conventional reasonableness factors (nature and importance of matter, novelty/difficulty, attorney skill and responsibility, customary charges, benefit to client, nexus between fees and amount at issue).
- When a trial court substantially reduces a requested fee, it should explain the basis for the reduction on the record. Absent adequate explanation, reversal and remand are warranted.
- A trial judge may rely on experience, but may not base decisions on private investigations or untested extrajudicial communications (here, the judge’s conversations with unnamed attorneys), because such inputs are not subject to cross‑examination or evidentiary testing.

5) Practice implications
- Fee petitions: include detailed time entries, tie entries to tasks/issues, and quantify nexus to enforcement work to limit reductions.
- Preservation: explicitly seek §508(b) relief for appellate work and develop record on reasonableness and necessity; oppose any reliance on the judge’s private consultations and request the judge articulate specific, record-based reasons for reductions.
- Remand strategy: seek an evidentiary hearing on fees, present supporting testimony/affidavits on customary rates and necessity, and brief statutory postjudgment interest authorities if interest is sought.