In re Marriage of Maloney
Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 5/27/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary:
<h3>Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 241713 -U</h3>
<strong>Order Date:</strong> May 8, 2025<br>
<strong>Case Numbers:</strong> No. 1-24-1713, 1-24-2175 (cons.)<br>
<strong>Appellate Court:</strong> I...
Full Case Summary
Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 241713 -U
Order Date: May 8, 2025Case Numbers: No. 1-24-1713, 1-24-2175 (cons.)
Appellate Court: Illinois First District, Fourth Division
Case Parties
Petitioner: Anne Marie MaloneyRespondent: Edward J. Maloney
Circuit Court Information: Originated from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Case Number No. 16D8266, presided by Honorable Michael Forti.
Court's Findings
Judgment: Delivered by Justice Hoffman with concurrence from Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Lyle. The court's order affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the matter for further proceedings regarding attorney and guardian ad litem fees, with Edward required to contribute to these fees as per Section 508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.Background of the Case
The couple, married since April 1, 2006, filed for divorce in September 2016, with Howard Rosenberg appointed as guardian ad litem for their three children. The September 13, 2019 judgment granted Anne primary parenting time with Edward's visitation rights, conditional on his participation in reunification therapy.Modification Petition
On February 6, 2020, Edward petitioned to increase his parenting time. Over multiple court hearings, the guardian ad litem recommended against the request, citing the children's best interests as a priority. Following Edward's testimony about therapy-related improvements, Anne moved for a directed finding against the modification, which the court eventually denied.Fee Petition and Hearings
Anne filed a Fee Petition on February 4, 2022, for contributions to her legal expenses, which its resolution was affected by the court's decision to deny Edward's evidentiary hearing request regarding the fee petition. Subsequent hearings indicated Edward’s objections about billing excessive practices but did not allow for a formal review or cross-examination.Conclusion on Appeals
The appeals were consolidated due to arguments concerning the improper requirement for Edward to cover Anne's fees under Section 508(b) and the denial of the evidentiary hearing on fee reasonableness. The appellate court found that the circuit court's failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting a remand for further proceedings to establish proper attorney fees. Final Ruling: The appellate court upheld Anne's entitlement to contribute towards her attorney fees but vacated the fee award for further assessment, concluding affirmations in part and vacating others, with the case remanded.Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Maloney? Ask our AI assistant below.