In re Marriage of McClure, 2020 IL App (2d) 191013-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of McClure, 2020 IL App (2d) 191013‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Dec. 7, 2020) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellee: Sheila McClure. Respondent‑Appellant: Michael J. McClure.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court properly sanctioned respondent under 750 ILCS 5/501 (monetary sanctions) for discovery misconduct.
2) Whether the trial court properly granted petitioner attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) for conduct that needlessly increased litigation costs.
3) What findings are required to support a §508(b) attorney‑fee award.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court: affirmed the trial court’s $15,000 sanction under §501 and its conclusion that respondent needlessly increased litigation costs under §508(b); reversed the trial court’s lump‑sum $50,000 attorney‑fee award under §508(b) as an abuse of discretion for lack of specific findings; remanded for the trial court to make the necessary findings and to award petitioner the portion of fees actually attributable to respondent’s misconduct.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court emphasized that trial courts have discretion to sanction discovery misconduct and to award fees where one party needlessly increases litigation costs. Here, respondent engaged in discovery noncompliance, evasive tactics, repeated subpoena battles, and filings that delayed and multiplied proceedings—facts supporting a §501 sanction and a finding that fees were increased needlessly under §508(b). However, an award under §508(b) cannot be a bare, arbitrary lump sum. The Dissolution Act requires the trial court to: identify the specific sanctionable acts, articulate how those acts increased costs, and make findings tying particular fee amounts to specific misconduct (including consideration of reasonableness and proportionality). Because the trial court failed to make those linkages and quantify fees attributable to sanctionable conduct, the $50,000 award was vacated and remanded for tailored findings and a proper fee calculation.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- When seeking fees under §508(b), present a clear record: itemize tasks, link time entries to particular sanctionable motions/defense work, and quantify fees caused by the opponent’s misconduct.
- Preserve findings at the trial level: request and proffer specific findings tying conduct → delay/costs → fee amount.
- Use motions to compel and sanctions promptly to document misconduct; oppose overbroad/harassing subpoenas with particularized objections.
- Be aware pro se parties can be sanctioned and that appellate courts will enforce the requirement that fee awards be factually and mathematically grounded.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 non‑precedential order.