In re Marriage of Pindiak, 2022 IL App (2d) 210466-U

In re Marriage of Pindiak, 2022 IL App (2d) 210466‑U (Ill. App. Ct. June 8, 2022) (Rule 23(b) order)
Parties: Elena Shtern Pindiak (petitioner‑appellant) v. Joseph M. Pindiak (respondent‑appellee).

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Pindiak, 2022 IL App (2d) 210466‑U. Post‑dissolution dispute between former spouses over QDROs for retirement accounts and cross petitions for attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(a) and (b).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying Elena’s claim for attorney fees under §508(a) (ability‑to‑pay leveling) and/or in granting Joseph a directed finding on her §508(a) claim.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding only a portion of Elena’s requested fees under §508(b) (fees for unreasonable conduct that unnecessarily litiga tes).

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s directed finding denying Elena §508(a) relief and its limited award under §508(b) (total $4,550 to Elena). The court also struck portions of Joseph’s pro se brief for Rule 341 noncompliance but otherwise resolved the appeal against Elena.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- §508(a): The trial court applied the Heroy standard (In re Marriage of Heroy, 2017 IL 120205), requiring a showing that paying fees would undermine a party’s financial stability. The court found Elena had received substantial post‑decree payments and that mere disparity in income/assets does not automatically require fee shifting; thus directed finding on §508(a) relief was appropriate.
- §508(b): The trial court exercised discretion in parsing which billings were caused by Joseph’s allegedly unreasonable QDRO positions (notably his larger claimed nonmarital amount) and which were mutual “fees on fees” after resolution (July 9, 2020). It awarded only limited fees tied to specific unnecessary conduct/dates and disallowed fees for later contested fee petitions.
- Appellate review was constrained by the absence of full reports of proceedings/transcripts on critical matters; where the record is incomplete, the appellate court presumes regularity of the trial court’s rulings and will not reverse.

5) Practice implications
- Preserve a complete record: prepare and include transcripts/reports of proceedings when contesting discretionary findings about fees; absent transcripts, appellate relief is unlikely.
- Fee petitions: courts scrutinize “fees on fees” and may deny recovery for litigation over fee petitions themselves. Tie requested billings to discrete unreasonable conduct/dates to justify §508(b) awards.
- §508(a) strategy: prove that payment of fees would materially undermine the other party’s financial stability (Heroy), not merely show disparity in income/assets.
- QDROs and MSA compliance: prompt, cooperative QDRO implementation (per MSA terms) reduces exposure to fee shifting; aggressive or novel positions about nonmarital portions risk partial §508(b) liability.
- Pro se litigants must comply with briefing rules (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341); noncompliance can lead to portions of briefs being struck.