chief justice honorable justices of the supreme court may please the court my name is tim wyler and i represent dr robert to bali in connection with this matter the issue before your honor today is whether the fees charged by a professional point of pursuing to to not only i hearing that will assess the reasonableness of the fees but also an allocation of the fees so are you ok with the remember this term occurred to make a determination based on six o bucket and sharing this the broad characteristics of mandatory and non negotiable and if this decision does dan that will open up the door for litigants to claim that any costs associated with litigation are taxable to a voluntarily dismissing but again i suggest your honour's that there are three bases for reversal of the lower court's decision one the decision stands in direct contradiction to what was that well settled illinois law to the decision stands as a strong deterrent for litigants to voluntarily dismiss action pursuant to seven thirty five i also yes five slash two dash one thousand and nine of the code of civil procedure and three there are too many differences between the previously identified examples of court costs and fees incurred in connection with a six  four b evaluation to lump them together as taxable to a voluntarily dismissing litigant therefore the six zero four beefy should not be classified as a nontaxable litigation costs and not be taxable court costs i'll dress dash one thousand and nine what is taxable as a court costs pursuant to dash one thousand and nine is not specifically enumerated in the statue certain costs have previously been considered by this court however the various costs that are associated with the i am d m a have not specifically been addressed what this court has done is address certain types of fees and expenses and gala which first beach aircraft corporation and its progeny in gallup's this court held that nearly two hundred thousand dollars and defendants deposition fees were not taxable to a voluntarily dismissing plaintiff in that decision this court held that the test for when the expense of a deposition is taxable as cost is necessary believes are court costs which are fixed and mandatory versus litigation costs which are not imposed by courts if you want to i can get into those first if you look at just she says that court costs are paid directly to the clerk of court and those are examples of filing fees appearance fees and alias summons fees the six zero four b evaluation in this case doctor to bali was ordered to fees directly to dr shapiro and not to the not to the clerk of the core second no judgement or court order is required for a party to incur court costs so there is no workable rude and when the case i'm sorry your honor depends upon the factual situation in each case well again i think justice zene offs dissent is well reasoned and she does lay out some examples of what are fixed court costs and again what what are what she resource and therefore a court costs but again i think that the classifying a six o four b evaluation as a court costs or closes a significant right of a litigant to have that hearing based on reasonable miss an allocation of the fees the fees that are incurred in connection with a six o four b evaluation or guardian ad litum are more often than not the most expensive portion requests an evaluation does this scenario make a difference the one you just explained about how the evaluation came about well certainly a six a four b evaluation is a judicial resource and can be only appointed by the court court's own witness but counsel for both parties is going to use this this judicial resource you know should in determining custody and again should the case proceed to trial yes case where you know i don't believe that i have a good chance of securing the relief but i'm looking for so given those those facts i think you know dr to bali's only voluntarily dismissing his case and the subsequent orders that were entered following that type of discussion were not in conformity with the agreement the council would come up with over the t hearing where in they assessed not only the reasonableness of the fees but also who was in a better financial position to pay these fees but frankly we wouldn't be here if you look reimbursement of costs on january thirty first two thousand and twelve and in that motion the the statute upon which she was seeking relief was to dash one thousand nine  there is a distinction to be made between the deposition fees and gala which and again what we've talked about is that it is a judicial resource what the what the second district tell this if you dish will resource if any case that follows that line cases i'm sorry we have anything that follows that line of cases but it's a judicial resource i'm sorry your honor i'm not familiar with any cases that establish that line of thinking outside of the the bali decision i know that the second district stated that because it's an additional resource  that the the the fees that are associated with the with this advice are subject to a hearing again based on a reasonable mist of the fees where the court can determine whether these fees are reasonable and in addition trial and sat in the court this court limited the necessary use of trial task to those specifically referred to by rule or statute see that my time is up based on sexual or be in the commensurate ability of the purse to pay because it's become an important issue that i believe this court is going to have to address sooner or later in this is the good case for it because it's  for the appointments in custody and visitation and other issues pertaining to family law is now the usual it's an extremely important tool to get or and i believe that this determination based on the first questionnaires just to stories based on which what this core may determine was a faulty determination made it based to do with one zero zero nine a right yet right  and if we find that there was no voluntary manslaughter involved in this case how do we allow a determination to stand under them rather than six o four be determining in london before you answer the in order of dismissal and then i understand that there was no objection by the other side and the motion for cost was under the voluntary nine suit statu prejudice does not make it voluntary or a non suit because for non suit they could have refiled within one year anyway it seems to me the concern was whether the order granting your motion to dismiss was with or without re a titian that makes out a cause of the action drawing its attention to the best interests of the child whether it be an ugly allegations or because there's been a change of circumstance so there with or without prejudice in this scenario that cost could be allocated yes don't you see the problem if we don't think it's a non suit to answer that question i will agree with healthful  withdrawing their petition from consideration before the court date is correct and is the way to be ultimate order was also framed and that's why it we first to that section isn't this a case where your motion for costs was based on one zero zero nine there was no objection to a determination based on one zero zero nine the trial judge ruled under one zero zero nine and in that's why it's here but don't we have a affirmative obligation if we think that he made his determination based under the wrong stance you to just send it back i know this is getting a little redundant from my end but  litigation they don't have an insurance company behind them they don't have a more billion dollars to go out where the money that these people have to pay comes out of the packet in the issues when you're is also a cost if there is a difference i'm going to say that in the scheme of this litigation the g a o quotients more as a conduit directly between the child with the warrior with the court participating in these routine everyday proceedings and in providing input with regard to issues that the poor to seeing on a regular six o four b obviously his contact for the evaluation it's not the kind of open are you going argue that the sixth or he has an impact on the court that would be could be greater than that of the g a o absolutely he had the six so who are being made other statements to the trial court made some other argument some other suggestion provided other information that she may have garnered from her contact with the lawyers in the parties and the twelve year old child the court may be may have made a decision that a six zero four b was not necessary and they had the true issues could have been otherwise