In re Marriage of O'Hara, 2019 IL App (1st) 172727-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of O’Hara, No. 1-17-2727, 2019 IL App (1st) 172727-U (1st Dist. Sept. 30, 2019) (Rule 23 order — nonprecedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Marcia O’Hara. Respondent-Appellant: Richard O’Hara.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in awarding petitioner attorney’s fees and costs under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) (IMDMA) and Supreme Court Rule 137 for frivolous/abusive litigation conduct.
- Whether the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s fee petition and whether respondent had an opportunity to challenge the reasonableness and connection of fees to the misconduct.
- Preservation/record issues: adequacy of the appellate record (failure to include certified transcripts under Supreme Court Rule 323) and waiver of arguments by failing to raise them in the trial court.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. Appellate court held respondent waived his appellate contentions (including the claim that an evidentiary hearing was required and that fees were unreasonable) by failing to preserve them in the trial court. Even if not waived, respondent failed to show reversible error.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Waiver: The court emphasized long-standing Illinois authority that a party who does not request an evidentiary hearing on attorney’s fees or properly timely object waives the right to complain on appeal (citing cases such as Hupe, McHenry, Blazis). Respondent never requested a hearing and thus waived that claim.
- Record burden: Appellant bore the burden of presenting a complete appellate record; absent certified transcripts, the court will presume the trial court acted properly (Foutch). The appellant improperly included uncertified transcripts in an appendix — court counsel warned to follow appellate rules.
- Merits: Trial court expressly found respondent’s pattern of conduct (filing false liens, obstructing accounting, misleading counsel) violated section 508(b) and Rule 137 and tied petitioner’s claimed fees ($61,627.45) to that conduct. Respondent’s post-hoc objections (vagueness/block billing, lack of connection) were deemed waived or inadequately presented.
- Procedure: The trial court had discretion to award fees where misconduct was shown; petitioner had pled and supported the fees, and respondent failed to contemporaneously challenge reasonableness or seek inspection of bills.

5. Practice implications
- Always timely object to fee petitions, expressly request an evidentiary hearing if desired, and contemporaneously challenge reasonableness or causation of claimed fees.
- Preserve issues in the trial court (including specific Rule 137 grounds and limits on sanctionable conduct) and use motions to reconsider to identify trial-record gaps.
- Strictly comply with appellate record rules (Rule 323); do not rely on uncertified transcripts or appendix materials.
- Filing false liens or engaging in repeated obstructive litigation can support fee awards under IMDMA §508(b) and Rule 137 and expose counsel/party to sanctions.