In re Marriage of Swanson, 2019 IL App (2d) 180695-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Swanson, 2019 IL App (2d) 180695-U (Ill. App. Ct. May 7, 2019) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellant: Jason P. Swanson. Respondent‑Appellee: Melinda M. Swanson.

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Jason to contribute to Melinda’s attorney fees (trial and appellate) under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (sections 501, 503, 504, 508), and whether the court properly weighed the parties’ respective abilities to pay.

- Holding/outcome
Affirmed as modified. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding contribution: it ordered Jason to pay 80% of Melinda’s outstanding trial fees (entered as $5,383.07) and 90% of her appellate fee ($3,150). The appellate court corrected a facial error in the trial court’s order under Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5).

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
Review is for abuse of discretion. The trial court adopted findings from the dissolution judgment (melinda: disabled, unemployable, lower future earning capacity; jason: healthy police officer, substantially higher earnings) and found Melinda’s fees reasonable (Jason did not dispute reasonableness). Applying statutory authority permitting contribution, the court focused on the parties’ incomes, future earning capacity, and relative hardship: payment would significantly impact Melinda while Jason had the ability to contribute. The court therefore exercised equitable discretion to allocate most of the fees to Jason. The appellate court found no reversible error in that factual and discretionary exercise; older two‑part formulations (inability to pay and corresponding ability of the other spouse) remain instructive but the statutory framework affords broad equitable relief.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- To obtain fee contribution, develop a clear record on (1) the fee amounts and reasonableness, (2) the fee‑seeker’s inability to pay (financial affidavit, disability/unemployability evidence), and (3) the opposing party’s ability to pay (income, obligations, future earning capacity).
- Preserve objections and request an evidentiary hearing if material factual disputes exist; however, courts may decide on affidavits/argument alone when the record supports findings.
- Seek explicit treatment of payment schedules, priority vis‑à‑vis mortgage/loans, and contempt/stay language to avoid enforcement surprises.
- Awards of contribution are reviewed for abuse of discretion; win on credibility and comparative ability to pay rather than legal error.