In re Marriage of Patel, 2021 IL App (1st) 200863-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Patel, No. 1-20-0863, 2021 IL App (1st) 200863‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., May 21, 2021).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Kamlesh (Kamleshkumar) Patel. Respondent‑Appellee: Jalpa Patel.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction given the notice of appeal timing during COVID‑19.
- Whether issues were waived for failure to file a post‑judgment motion after a bench trial.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by (a) adopting a party’s proposed decree verbatim, (b) awarding contribution toward opposing counsel’s fees without adequate factual support, and (c) allocating child healthcare and childcare costs as it did (including COBRA obligations).

3. Holding/outcome
- Appellate jurisdiction exists: notice of appeal filed within the Illinois Supreme Court’s COVID‑19 extension (60 days).
- No waiver: post‑trial motion not required to preserve issues after a bench trial.
- Trial court’s verbatim adoption of the proposed judgment is not per se reversible error; however:
- Reversed the award requiring appellant to pay 75% of appellee’s attorney fees (because appellee failed to prove inability to pay).
- Vacated the allocation of childcare and healthcare costs and remanded for reallocation consistent with the IMDMA.
- Otherwise affirmed the dissolution judgment (including maintenance, child support, and property division as supported by the record).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: Illinois Supreme Court M.R. extending filing deadlines during COVID validated appeals filed within 60 days.
- Preservation: Rule 366 and cases (bench trials) permit direct appeal without post‑judgment motion.
- Standard of review: abuse of discretion for discretionary rulings; manifest‑weight standard for factual findings.
- Proposed orders: courts may adopt a party’s draft, and doing so is not automatic abdication of judicial duty, so long as discretion is in fact exercised.
- Attorney fees: under IMDMA, contribution awards require factual support (including proof of the recipient’s inability to pay and reasonableness/necessity of fees); the record here lacked adequate evidence, and denial of an evidentiary hearing on fee entitlement/contribution was reversible as to that award.
- Child healthcare/COBRA allocations must comply with statutory allocation principles; the trial court’s ordering of 100% premiums and COBRA obligations to appellant was vacated for further compliant allocation.

5. Practice implications (for attorneys)
- When seeking fee contribution: develop a clear evidentiary record (affidavits, proofs of inability to pay, contemporaneous billing, reasonableness) and, if contested, insist on an evidentiary hearing.
- When submitting proposed judgments: include proposed findings of fact and legal reasoning or seek the court’s own findings to reduce appellate vulnerability.
- For child healthcare and COBRA orders: structure orders to reflect IMDMA allocation standards and make factual bases explicit.
- On appeals: track COVID/administrative extensions; for bench trials, a post‑judgment motion is not required to preserve issues.