In re Marriage of Hyman

Facts

The marriage of Rachel D. Hyman and Jeffrey R. Hyman was dissolved in 2015, which included a marital settlement agreement specifying equal division of any undisclosed marital assets. In 2017, Rachel petitioned the court to allocate undisclosed stock options purportedly belonging to Jeffrey. The trial court granted her petition and awarded Rachel a sum that Jeffery was required to pay after taxes and expenses. Following Jeffrey's appeal against this judgment, the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. Subsequently, Rachel sought attorney fees for both the initial proceedings and for her successful defense of Jeffrey’s appeal.

Issue

The main issues at hand involved whether the trial court erred in (1) the amount of attorney fees awarded to Rachel, (2) the denial of her request for appellate attorney fees, and (3) the refusal to grant statutory postjudgment interest on the awarded amount.

Holding

The Illinois Appellate Court vacated the trial court's orders regarding both the attorney fee petitions and the postjudgment interest, remanding the case for a new hearing. The appellate court found that the trial court had failed to provide adequate reasoning for its fee reductions and had unreasonably denied Rachel's requests for both appellate fees and mandatory postjudgment interest.

Reasoning

The appellate court reasoned that Section 508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act mandates the imposition of attorney fees when one party fails to comply with a court order without justification. Although the trial court acknowledged that Jeffrey’s conduct lacked compelling cause, it awarded only a fraction of the requested fees without explanation, which constituted an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the appellate court determined that the trial court's reliance on informal consultations with unnamed attorneys was improper, as these opinions were not subjected to legal scrutiny.

Regarding appellate attorney fees, the appellate court noted that Section 508(b) applies without conditions that would limit its applicability to specific types of cases like child support. Therefore, since Jeffrey had failed to comply with a court order without justification, the trial court was mandated to award Rachel her appellate attorney fees. Finally, the court found that Rachel’s request for postjudgment interest was based on a statute that allows no discretion; thus, the trial court erred in denying it.

In conclusion, the appellate court provided clear directions for a new hearing to reassess Rachel’s claims for attorney fees and confirmed her entitlement to postjudgment interest.