In re Marriage of Trilla, 2019 IL App (1st) 181847-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Trilla, No. 1-17-1847 & 1-18-0213 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. Feb. 20, 2019) (Rule 23 order; not precedential). Petitioner-Appellant: Lester Trilla. Respondent-Appellee: Jean Trilla. Appellees also include Audrey L. Gaynor & Associates, P.C. and Law Office of Joel Ostrow.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding post‑judgment attorney fees and contribution under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/508(a)/(a)(3)).
2. Whether the court properly awarded prospective fees to defend an appeal (trial and appellate counsel).
3. Whether the court’s in camera review of billing records violated Lester’s due process rights.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court’s awards stood: cumulative contribution obligations to Jean totaling $140,498.24 (prior orders plus the June 28, 2017 award to Audrey L. Gaynor & Associates, P.C.), and additional awards to Jean of $15,000 for trial‑court defense of appeal‑related motions and $30,000 for appellate defense — $45,000 in prospective appeal fees. Denial of reconsideration was affirmed. Due process challenge failed.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: fee awards in dissolution matters are reviewed for abuse of discretion; here the trial court’s factual findings (including need, ability to pay, and reasonableness of fees) were supported and not clearly erroneous.
- Statutory framework: court applied IMDMA (§§ 503, 504, 508) factors (need, ability to pay, reasonableness, conduct of parties) to require contribution. Trial court found Jean lacked resources and that Lester’s litigation conduct caused additional fees.
- In camera inspection: permissible; did not violate due process where billing records were examined privately and used to assess reasonableness.
- Prospective appellate fees: lawful under § 508(a)(3); court may award amounts different from those requested. The court relied on attorney affidavits estimating hours (“at least 50 hours”) and its own experience in assessing reasonable time and fees.
- The court was not required to award exactly the amount requested and may draw on its knowledge to set a reasonable prospective fee.

- Practice implications
- Preserve objections but expect broad judicial discretion in fee awards under IMDMA.
- Provide detailed billing records (anticipate in camera review) and clear affidavits showing need and opponent’s ability to pay.
- When seeking prospective appellate fees, submit realistic time estimates and documentation; courts may adjust amounts based on experience.
- Litigation conduct (e.g., unilateral termination of payments, discovery noncompliance, delay tactics) can support fee shifting.
- Note Rule 23 status: persuasive but not precedential; useful guidance on trial courts’ latitude in fee awards.