In re Marriage of Peklo, 2023 IL App (2d) 210339-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Peklo, 2023 IL App (2d) 210339‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Feb. 15, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Justine A. Peklo. Respondent‑Appellant: John C. Peklo.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court improperly relied on petitioner’s success in defending respondent’s post‑dissolution petition to reduce maintenance as a basis to shift attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(a).
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering respondent to pay petitioner’s attorney fees given the parties’ relative financial circumstances.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err: (a) it considered petitioner’s success only as a factor in fixing the amount of fees (not as the threshold basis to shift fees), and (b) shifting fees to respondent was not an abuse of discretion because petitioner demonstrated she could not reasonably pay and respondent could. Trial court judgment awarding $5,940 (fees incurred defending the petition and for the fee petition) was affirmed.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Governing statute: 750 ILCS 5/508(a) permits fee shifting after considering the parties’ financial resources; §503(j) and §504 guide contribution and maintenance considerations. The court reiterated Heroy: fee shifting requires a showing that the requesting party cannot pay and the opposing party can.
- The trial court’s comments about petitioner’s “complete success” were interpreted as relevant to assessing the reasonableness/necessity of the fees incurred, not as an independent statutory basis to shift fees. In denying respondent’s motion to reconsider, the trial court explicitly stated it may consider the litigation history/outcome when determining a reasonable fee amount.
- Financial affidavits supported the award: petitioner’s net monthly available after expenses was limited (~$1,441.52), while respondent’s net monthly was higher (~$2,546.82) and he owned a mortgage‑free residence and other assets. The court declined to award fees attributable to continuances caused by respondent’s counsel’s serious illness (treated as force majeure).

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Under §508(a) courts will (and may permissibly) consider litigation outcome when quantifying reasonable fees, but outcome is not a substitute for the statutory financial‑resources inquiry.
- Prepare thorough, current financial affidavits and documentary support to establish inability to pay and opponent’s ability.
- Document reasonableness/necessity of time expended; success in litigation strengthens the argument for reasonableness of fees.
- Expect courts to disallow fee claims tied to unavoidable delays (e.g., counsel medical emergencies). Preserve timely motions (reconsideration) and an adequate record for appeal.