In re Marriage of Jordan, 2021 IL App (1st) 200969-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Jordan, 2021 IL App (1st) 200969‑U. Petitioner‑Appellee: Colleen Jordan. Respondent‑Appellant: Justin Spratt. (Order filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23; Sixth Division, Oct. 22, 2021.)

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court properly awarded petitioner attorney fees under section 508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/508(b) (West 2018)) based on respondent’s attachment of an unredacted tax return to a motion to reconsider.
2. The relationship and distinction between Ill. S. Ct. R. 138(f) (redaction of personal identity information) and §508(b) (fee shifting for failure to comply with orders or hearings precipitated/conducted for improper purpose).
3. Appellate jurisdictional timing (late notice of appeal addressed by the Illinois Supreme Court supervisory order).

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s award of attorney fees. The court concluded the record did not show the hearing was precipitated or conducted for an improper purpose as required by §508(b). The fee award (initially $2,595, later reduced to $2,295) was vacated.

- Significant legal reasoning
- §508(b) authorizes fees in two circumstances: (1) enforcement proceedings where noncompliance was without compelling cause, and (2) when a hearing was precipitated or conducted for an improper purpose (examples: harassment, unnecessary delay, needlessly increasing litigation costs).
- The trial court awarded fees under §508(b) because respondent’s filing necessitated an emergency motion to redact. The appellate court held that an “improper use” of a document is not equivalent to an “improper purpose” in filing a motion or precipitating a hearing. The record did not show respondent filed the motion (with the unredacted return) for harassment, delay, or other abusive litigation purposes; no finding of violation of an order was present.
- The appellate court noted that fees under Rule 138(f)(2) (for willful inclusion of personal identity information) are a distinct basis and were not the basis of the trial court’s award.

- Practice implications
- Don’t conflate discovery/filing errors with statutory bad‑faith conduct required by §508(b); to secure §508(b) fees the record must show lack of compliance or a hearing precipitated/conducted for an improper purpose (harassment, delay, etc.).
- When personal identity information is filed, seek relief and fees under Rule 138(f) (which targets willful inclusion), and develop the factual record accordingly.
- Judges awarding fees should state clear factual findings tying conduct to statutory criteria. Attorneys should plead and prove the specific statutory basis for fee requests.
- Be meticulous about redacting sensitive information; inadvertent attachments risk expense and motion practice even if not sanctionable.
- Note appellate timing pitfalls in post‑dissolution matters: preserve appealability (Rule 304(a)) or use proper routes for late notices (Rule 383/supervisory relief), but do not rely on leniency.