In re Marriage of Rybka, 2022 IL App (3d) 210561-U

Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Rybka, 2022 IL App (3d) 210561‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 21, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Rose Cecili Rybka (now Leach). Respondent‑Appellee: Edward John Rybka.

Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allocating guardian ad litem (GAL) fees between parents after mother filed to relocate the child.
- Whether disgorgement or reallocation could be used to require the other parent to reimburse fees the mother had already paid.

Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the GAL fees and properly declined to disgorge already‑earned fees. The trial court ordered Edward to pay an additional $4,326.25 (bringing his total contribution to $15,826.25).

Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Statutory/standard framework: Trial courts may appoint a GAL in custody/visitation matters and may order fees paid by one or both parents (750 ILCS 5/506). Allocation is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Relevant factors include parents’ financial resources, which party precipitated the need for fees, time/effort, novelty/difficulty of issues, customary fees, and benefits to the child (Kennedy; Gibson).
- Facts: Mother filed to relocate to Tennessee and sought a GAL; the GAL ultimately recommended relocation but the court denied relocation. GAL fees totaled $29,865; mother had already paid ~$14,038.75; father paid $11,500. Father requested the GAL attend the entire trial (increasing fees).
- Court’s analysis: Although father likely earned more, the record did not establish his monthly expenses; mother had substantial assets and had already paid nearly half the fee, indicating ability to pay. The father’s request for the GAL to attend trial was reasonable. Trial judge’s allocation (including refusal to disgorge earned fees) fell within the broad discretion afforded courts. Disgorgement is limited to turning over interim fees/retainers—not to recapture fees already earned and billed.

Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Preserve and introduce detailed evidence of both parties’ incomes, monthly obligations, liquidity, and prior payments to support a proportional allocation argument.
- If seeking reallocation based on another party’s conduct (e.g., insisting GAL attend trial), quantify and document incremental fees tied to that conduct; unsupported estimates are weak.
- Do not assume income disparity alone will shift allocation—courts consider ability to pay, prior payments, conduct precipitating fees, and reasonableness of GAL participation.
- Understand disgorgement’s limited scope: once fees are earned, courts are unlikely to force reimbursement via disgorgement; seek specific fee allocations or security orders early.
- When appointing a GAL, negotiate and memorialize retainer/allocation terms, and seek contemporaneous itemization to aid later fee disputes.