In re Marriage of Maloney, 2025 IL App (1st) 241713-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Maloney, 2025 IL App (1st) 241713-U (1st Dist. May 8, 2025).
- Petitioner–Appellee: Anne Marie Maloney. Respondent–Appellant: Edward J. Maloney.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly awarded contribution to the petitioner’s attorney and guardian ad litem (GAL) fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) where respondent filed and litigated a petition to modify parenting time.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing an evidentiary hearing on contested fee amounts and by making a summary determination of reasonable fees.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining respondent must contribute to fees under Section 508(b). But the court abused its discretion by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine a reasonable fee award; the fee figures the trial court entered were vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings on fees.

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Section 508(b) allows contribution when a party “acted for improper purpose” or needlessly increased litigation costs. The appellate court agreed the trial court permissibly found respondent’s decision to proceed to a four‑day hearing—despite unfavorable reports from the reunification therapist and the GAL—needlessly increased costs, even though filing the petition was not itself shown to be for an improper purpose.
- The trial court’s denial of a directed finding did not constitute a finding that respondent had a prima facie right to relief; the court explained it had to consider the totality of evidence and the children’s best interests.
- However, on the fee-amount question the appellate court concluded that factual disputes (reasonableness, overlapping entries, hourly rates, multiple-attorney billing) required an evidentiary hearing and a fuller fact‑finding record. A summary handling of billing statements was insufficient.

5) Practice implications
- Before seeking expanded parenting time, evaluate neutral professionals’ reports (GAL, therapists). Proceeding with a lengthy contested hearing despite adverse professional recommendations can expose a litigant to fee-shifting under §508(b).
- When opposing a fee petition, insist on an evidentiary hearing if there are contested factual issues (contemporaneous billing, duplicate entries, reasonableness of hours/rates, necessity of multiple attorneys). Trial courts should make specific findings about reasonableness.
- For fee applicants: preserve contemporaneous, detailed billing entries; explain allocation of time among multiple attorneys and show necessity. For respondents: timely raise objections, seek line‑by‑line review and cross‑examination if entries are disputed.
- Strategically consider motions to decide on the papers or early resolution to avoid creating a record that could support a §508(b) contribution claim.