NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except 

in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

2024 IL App (3d) 230047-U

Order filed June 20, 2024

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2024 

In re MARRIAGE OF )

 ) 

DANIEL CHAPA, III, ) 

 ) 

Petitioner-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

and ) 

 ) 

NANCY LEA CHAPA, ) 

 ) 

Respondent-Appellant. )

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 18th Judicial Circuit, 

Du Page County, Illinois, 

Appeal No. 3-23-0047 

Circuit No. 09-D-395 

Honorable 

Neal W. Cerne, 

Judge, Presiding.

____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE ALBRECHT delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Hettel and Peterson concurred in the judgment. 

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court acted within its discretion in denying respondent’s petition to 

extend maintenance but abused its discretion when awarding attorney fees. 

¶ 2 The Second District reversed the circuit court’s denial of respondent, Nancy Chapa’s, 

petition for extension of maintenance from her former spouse, petitioner Daniel Chapa, inter 

alia, for its failure to consider section 504(a) factors of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of 

Marriage Act (Act) as was directed from the limited review outlined in the parties’ dissolution 
2 

judgment. On remand, the circuit court ordered Daniel to pay $2000 in attorney fees to Nancy 

and again denied Nancy’s request to extend maintenance. Nancy appeals the circuit court’s 

order. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of Nancy’s petition for 

extension of maintenance but modify its attorney fees award. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The Second District, to which the parties appealed issues concerning their dissolution and 

its aftermath six times prior, characterized this matter as “ ‘highly contentious.’ ” See In re 

Marriage of Chapa, 2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶ 5 (Chapa IV) (quoting In re Marriage of 

Chapa, 2013 IL App (2d) 120745-U, ¶ 4 (Chapa I)). The record substantiates this 

characterization. 

¶ 5 A. Original Maintenance Award

¶ 6 The parties married on December 9, 1989. After 19 years of marriage, Daniel petitioned 

for dissolution in February 2009. There were two children born of the marriage, both of whom 

are now emancipated. In April 2012, the circuit court dissolved the marriage and entered a 

judgment awarding child support and maintenance to Nancy. In part, the terms of the award 

included that Nancy was to receive biweekly support from Daniel in the amount of $3400, which 

was approximately 50% of his income. Daniel was also to pay Nancy 50% of his net annual 

bonuses. The dissolution judgment clarified that this arrangement would begin after the sale of 

the parties’ marital residence and continue for a fixed term of 48 months. Id. ¶ 8. 

¶ 7 The maintenance award was subject to review at the end of the fixed term. The 

dissolution judgment clarified that for the continuation of maintenance beyond the 48-month 

period, Nancy was required to file a petition no later than 30 days subsequent to the final 

payment, the court would review her request to extend de novo pursuant to the criteria set forth
3 

in section 504 of the Act (750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2012)), and Nancy was obligated “to use her 

best effort to become increasingly self[-]supporting” during the period she received maintenance.

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chapa IV, 2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶ 8.

¶ 8 The parties’ marital home did not sell until November 2015. The delay in the closing of 

the parties’ marital home was, “in large part[,] caused by Nancy’s refusal to comply with the 

terms of the [dissolution] judgment[.]” Id. ¶ 9.

¶ 9 B. Nancy’s Petition for Extension of her Maintenance Award

¶ 10 Forty six months later, on September 20, 2019, Nancy filed a petition to review and 

extend maintenance, seeking permanent maintenance and an increase to her monthly award. In 

her amended petition filed 10 days later, Nancy alleged that she was employed but earned a 

nominal income despite her best efforts. Thereafter, Daniel petitioned to terminate Nancy’s 

maintenance claiming Nancy’s failure to use her best efforts to become increasingly selfsupporting barred extending his maintenance obligation. In the interim, Nancy filed a motion for 

temporary maintenance in November. The court awarded Nancy a monthly temporary 

maintenance award of $4243 on January 14, 2020. The following day, she filed a petition for 

interim and prospective attorney fees and costs pursuant to sections 501 and 508 of the Act, 

which the court later stated via order it would consider with the other pleadings relating to 

maintenance.1 750 ILCS 5/501, 508 (West 2020). 

¶ 11 In the wake of a mistrial and delays largely attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, a 

two-day trial on the parties’ petitions commenced on August 26, 2021.2 At trial, the parties 

1

In a May 17, 2021, order, the court continued the parties’ motions and Nancy’s petition for trial. 

In that order, it titled her fee petition as one for “Contribution to Attorneys’ fees and Costs.”

2

On May 21, 2021, Nancy filed an unsuccessful motion for substitution of judge. 735 ILCS 5/2-

1001(a)(2)(i) (West 2020). In so denying, the court’s rationale was that it had substantively ruled on the 

case numerous times. 
4 

stipulated to the entry of a transcript and exhibits from a hearing conducted on March 9, 2020. 

Portions of this hearing concentrated on critical evidence that was not fully addressed at the 

subsequent August 2021 trial. Namely, the record reveals Nancy received her bachelor’s degree 

in finance and worked as a vice president of a bank in Dallas, Texas at the beginning of the 

parties’ marriage. While working, Nancy earned an approximate annual salary of $50,000. Her 

last day of work was December 31, 1991. In the 1990s, the parties moved four times for Daniel’s 

career advancement, each time to a different state. During the marriage, Nancy was a 

homemaker and cared for the parties’ children. She did not work from 1992 to 2014. As to the 

parties’ lifestyle during the marriage, Daniel testified to regularly taking vacations and added that 

they had “a nice home[,] *** went out to eat[,] *** [and] did fine.” Daniel’s tax forms reveal a 

variable downward trend in his income since the parties’ dissolution. For the years 2013 through 

2015, he correspondingly reported an adjusted gross income of $1,633,294; $889,505; and 

$1,710,897. By 2017, his adjusted gross income had decreased to $237,714. As of March 9, 

2020, Daniel received an annual base pay of $260,000.

¶ 12 In 2014, Nancy enrolled in Loyola University’s scripture school but dropped out in her 

second year. She reenrolled in 2018, but her attendance has since been sporadic. Nancy testified 

that she netted an income of $12,574 in 2015 and $13,260 in 2016 from her part-time 

employment. She attributed the dip in her 2017 and 2018 incomes to the approximate four-week

leave and trips that she took to visit sick family members in Oklahoma.3 Nancy testified that she 

submitted various unsuccessful online job applications from late 2019 to early 2020; however, 

during cross-examination, after being confronted that her applications were omitted from her 

3

According to her W-2 forms, Nancy made $8910.08 in 2017 and $8361.74 in 2018. 
5 

interrogatory answers, she stated she must have been wrong about the application dates. At the 

time of the hearing, Nancy was 58 years old. 

¶ 13 At the August 26, 2021, trial, Daniel and Nancy supplemented their prior testimonies.

Daniel was employed by HFG Trust from 2006 to 2015. Between May 2017 until May 2019, he 

was unemployed, but periodically provided consulting. In May 2019, he began employment at 

Bank Leumi, USA as a credit risk executive. Daniel testified that his 2021 base salary was 

$290,000. Daniel’s employer provides discretionary bonuses. At the time of trial, Daniel had 

earned $241,607 in 2021 but was not inline to receive a bonus for that fiscal year. In 2020, he 

earned $341,233 and received a $70,000 bonus. Daniel had remarried, and his wife earned an 

approximate $195,000 gross annual salary. He purchased a new home in 2016 for $795,000, 

where he and his wife reside. He believed the value of the home at the time of trial was 

$850,000. Daniel paid for the mortgage, property taxes, and insurance on the home. He and his 

wife split other expenses. For instance, they split a $70,000 expense for a recent bathroom 

renovation. They also shared vacation costs. Daniel testified that he and his wife keep separate 

bank accounts and he has never put any money into his wife’s account. The court sustained an 

objection to Nancy’s counsel inquiring on his wife’s assets, stating it is an irrelevant 

consideration for the lifestyle that the parties’ enjoyed during their marriage. Daniel testified that 

from 2018 through 2021 he withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars from his retirement 

account to pay for legal fees, maintenance, and living expenses.4 There were tax implications for 

these withdrawals. In 2019, his withdrawal cost about $39,000 in taxes. Since Nancy filed her 

4

Daniel testified that he withdrew $223,000 in 2019, and $125,000 in 2020 and 2021 from his 

Fidelity individual retirement account (IRA). 
6 

petition for extension in September 2019, Daniel has paid approximately $80,000 to $85,000 in 

attorney fees. 

¶ 14 Nancy testified that she has worked part-time at a sporting goods store since 2015, 

however, her current working hours were “[a]lmost zero.” She earned an hourly wage of $12.50 

which, as indicated by her financial affidavit, amounts to $150 a month. Her hours were reduced 

in part so that she could care for the parties’ distressed son and also due to the COVID-19 

pandemic. At the time of trial, the parties’ son lived with Nancy. The most she received 

previously from her employer was in 2015 when she earned “[a]bout [$]16,000” gross income. 

After the dissolution decree was entered in 2012 and up until 2014, Nancy did not look for work 

but took care of the parties’ daughter as her daughter prepared to leave for college. She worked 

the 2014-2015 Christmas season as a seasonal greeter at L'Occitane earning $10 an hour and 

testified about other odd jobs. Nancy testified to having only one bank account with a $277 

balance. For her remaining assets, she had a 2007 BMW valued at $2,000, a life insurance policy 

valued at $6800, and a retirement account that has a $477,367 balance. She was indebted to the 

Internal Revenue Service in the approximate amount of $74,000. 

¶ 15 Nancy also testified about her “job diary”—a document chronicling her recent efforts to 

find full-time employment from August 2019 onwards. On cross-examination, Daniel’s counsel

questioned Nancy’s effort to pursue any of the jobs listed in the “job diary.” She testified that her 

monthly expenses are $3400, but she does not withdraw funds from her retirement account nor 

receive financial aid from any other individual to cover these expenses. 

¶ 16 During trial, Nancy raised her middle finger towards Daniel’s counsel, called him 

“disgusting,” a “completely washed[-]up old man,” and swore at him. After the court 

admonished Nancy for these outbursts and warned of the possibility of criminal contempt, she 
7 

responded, “I’m sure you’re dying to put me in jail.” At other points in her testimony, Nancy was 

argumentative with the court. The parties reconvened the following day on Daniel’s motion to 

terminate. Following testimony and arguments, the parties submitted their respective written 

closing arguments on September 21, 2021. In her closing statement, Nancy argued that she 

lacked the ability to pay her outstanding attorney fees, which at the time were in excess of 

$15,000, and that Daniel had the ability to substantially contribute to these costs. 

¶ 17 On December 9, 2021, the circuit court entered a written order denying Nancy’s petition 

to extend maintenance, primarily focusing on her failure to use her best efforts to become 

increasingly self-supporting. Chapa IV, 2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶ 15. The order did not 

include an analysis of the factors in section 504(a), which the court was required to review de 

novo based on the limited review outlined in the April 2012 dissolution judgment. Id. The court 

ordered each party to pay their own attorney fees. It believed Nancy was receiving financial 

support from another person which she did not disclose. It also found that, based on her refusal 

to comply with court orders and her vulgarity, Nancy had no respect for the judicial system and 

added that her credibility was “highly suspect.” Id. 

¶ 18 C. Appellate Review of the Circuit Court’s Denial of Nancy’s Petition

¶ 19 On September 8, 2022, the Second District vacated the circuit court’s order and 

remanded its judgment based in part on the circuit court’s failure to conduct a de novo review 

under section 504(a) of the Act. Id. ¶¶ 34, 62. The original maintenance award, the court

concluded, was partially rehabilitative in nature, but proof of Nancy’s best efforts was not a 

prerequisite to an extension of her maintenance award. Id. ¶ 39. Rather, it was one factor to be 

considered in tandem with the court’s de novo 504(a) review. See id. Further, the circuit court’s 

alternative focus on nonstatutory factors resulted in the use of an incorrect standard of review, 
8 

which amounted to an abuse of discretion. Id. ¶¶ 44, 46. Similarly, the court abused its 

discretion by failing to consider the factors set forth in sections 503(d) and 504(a) of the Act 

when it refused to grant Nancy’s petition for postjudgment fees. Id. ¶¶ 54-55. The Chapa court 

also found the retroactive termination of maintenance for a 12-month period was an abuse of 

discretion as it was neither supported by factual findings nor was it requested by Daniel. Id. ¶ 58. 

¶ 20 The Second District offered explicit guidance on two issues it thought may arise on 

remand. First, it stated section 510(a-5) factors are inapplicable to the court’s review proceedings

because the parties’ 2012 dissolution judgment outlined a limited review clarifying the “only 

factors to be considered” in reviewing Nancy’s petition for an extension of her maintenance 

award “were the factors set in section 504(a) and Nancy’s best efforts to become selfsupporting.” Id. ¶ 65; 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5) (West 2012). Second, and important for our review, it 

held the court should review the section 504(a) factors in effect on the date of the original 

judgment (April 27, 2012) as opposed to when Nancy filed her petition for extension (September 

20, 2019). Chapa IV, 2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶¶ 67, 74. 

¶ 21 D. Circuit Court’s Denial of Nancy’s Petition on Remand

¶ 22 Both parties filed motions for the court to comply with the appellate mandate upon 

remand. Nancy’s motion also requested that the case be reassigned to a different judge. In sum, 

she argued that because the evidence supporting her petition originated from a different 

courtroom,5 it violated a local court rule for the judge to adjudicate on remand. 18th Judicial Cir. 

Ct. R. 1.34(a) (Mar. 23, 2006) (following remand from a reviewing court that requires further 

proceedings “[t]he case shall be set in the courtroom from which the case was appealed.”). 

5

The record indicates that the judge’s assignment changed from presiding over the domestic 

relations courtroom to the law division sometime during the prior appeal’s pendency. 
9 

Nancy’s counsel vocalized this concern when the parties reconvened before the court on October 

3, 2022. In refusing Nancy’s request, the court entered a written order explaining that judicial 

economy was best served if it kept the case. 

¶ 23 On October 31, 2022, Nancy filed a petition for attorney fees and costs requesting Daniel 

pay for her outstanding fees which, post appeal, amounted to $26,311.78. On November 16, 

2022, Nancy filed a motion to reopen proofs and stay the court’s ruling. In support of her motion, 

Nancy pled that she was in a car accident and endured serious injuries that rendered her unable to 

work. On January 18, 2023, the court heard arguments and denied Nancy’s motion to reopen 

proofs and stay the court’s ruling, noting 18 months had elapsed since it heard evidence on 

Nancy’s petition. During this hearing, the court questioned Nancy’s attorney on the issue of 

attorney fees. Noting that she filed a petition for interim and prospective fees, it “disagree[d] that 

[her petition was] a petition for contribution” but accepted the Second District’s position that it 

was. Nonetheless, it asked Nancy’s counsel to identify where her attorney fees were introduced 

in the record. 

¶ 24 In a January 23, 2023, written order, the court denied Nancy’s petition to extend 

maintenance, retroactively terminated Daniel’s obligation to pay as of January 1, 2023, and 

ordered Daniel to contribute $2000 to Nancy for attorney fees. In a supplemental oral ruling, it 

conveyed appreciation to Nancy’s counsel for directing its attention to the portion of the record 

where the parties’ stipulated that the attorney fees “submitted were fair and reasonable.” It 

explained the Second District instructed it to “consider the 504 factors that existed, and I’ve done 

that in the judgment ***.” It also stated its bewilderment at Nancy’s failure to “build a case” to 

show efforts of becoming self-supporting, explaining “there’s nothing for *** the court to do, 
10 

frankly, because the factors require that you look at [Nancy’s] ability to have a job, her skills, her 

employability. She didn’t do it. I don’t get it.” 

¶ 25 Nancy timely appealed. 

¶ 26 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 27 On appeal, Nancy advances three primary arguments why the circuit court erred when it 

denied her petition for extended maintenance and terminated Daniel’s maintenance obligation. 

First, Nancy contends that the court failed to properly consider the statutory factors outlined in 

section 504(a) of the Act. 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2012). Second, she maintains the court erred 

by focusing on what it perceived as Nancy’s failure to produce evidence of her best efforts to 

become self-supporting, which created an imbalance when ruling on her petition. Third, she 

argues the court’s decision to deny her petition was impermissibly based on nonstatutory 

considerations. Nancy also takes issue with the “woefully low” $2000 attorney fees award that 

Daniel was directed to pay. 

¶ 28 Separate from the court’s ruling, Nancy challenges the impartiality of the court and 

claims the court’s decision to assume the case ran afoul of local rule. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct. R.

1.34(a) (Mar. 23, 2006). She also asserts error over the court’s decision to deny her motion to 

reopen proofs. 

¶ 29 A. Motion to Strike Nancy’s Brief

¶ 30 Before reaching the merits on appeal, we first address Daniel’s motion to strike Nancy’s 

appellate brief for its purported failure to comply with the requirements of Illinois Supreme 

Court Rule 341. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Where violations interfere with our 

appellate review, we may strike a brief for its failure to comply with our supreme court’s rules

governing appellate procedure. Wing v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2016 IL App (1st) 153517, ¶ 
11 

11. Daniel’s primary procedural arguments are that Nancy’s opening brief violates Rule 341 

through its disorganization, by failing to cite the applicable standard of review for each appellate 

issue, and by omitting a suitable statement of jurisdiction. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(1), (3), (4)(ii) (eff. 

Oct. 1, 2020). Nancy’s brief, however, identifies a standard of review for each of her respective 

appellate arguments. For the subset of her appellate issues that are questions of law, Nancy 

employs an umbrella citation to People v. Jolly and advocates for a de novo standard of review. 

2014 IL 117142, ¶ 28, as modified on denial of reh'g (Jan. 28, 2015). We find this adequately 

complies with Rule 341(h)(3). Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(3) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (requiring a statement 

with the “applicable standard of review for each issue, with citation to authority”). The brief’s 

noncompliance with Rule 341, which includes a jurisdictional statement that does not identify 

the dates of the orders Nancy appeals from and misplaces the “Points and Authorities” portion at 

the tail end of the brief, does not hinder our review and we deny Daniel’s motion to strike. Gruby 

v. Department of Public Health, 2015 IL App (2d) 140790, ¶ 12, as modified on denial of reh'g

(June 17, 2015) (“Striking a party’s brief, in whole or in part, is a harsh sanction and is 

appropriate only when the violations hinder our review.”); Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(1), 4(ii) (eff. Oct. 

1, 2020).

¶ 31 B. Standard of Review

¶ 32 Maintenance awards are within the sound discretion of the circuit court and will not be 

disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Brunke, 2019 IL App (2d) 190201, ¶ 

32. A court has abused its discretion when its ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where 

no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 

21, 36 (2009). We presume that the circuit court’s determination for awarding maintenance is 

correct. In re Marriage of Donovan, 361 Ill. App. 3d 1059, 1063 (2005).
12 

¶ 33 As has been repeatedly established in the parties’ previous appeals, the circuit court 

entered a judgment for dissolution of marriage on April 27, 2012, which outlined Daniel’s 

maintenance obligation. A portion of this obligation awarded Nancy maintenance from Daniel’s 

base pay and bonuses for a 48-month period after the closing on the parties’ marital home. This 

arrangement was subject to limited review and potential extension, so long as (1) Nancy filed a 

petition to extend maintenance no later than 30 days after the final payment of the established 

period, (2) the court conducted a de novo review of the criteria set forth in section 504 of the Act, 

and (3) Nancy used her best efforts to become increasingly self-supporting during the period she 

received maintenance. The third factor is compulsory and a “major factor” in the court’s limited 

review. Chapa I, 2013 IL App (2d) 120745-U, ¶ 35. Hence, the original maintenance award is 

“partially rehabilitative in nature.” Chapa IV, 2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶ 39. 

¶ 34 There are four common types of maintenance under the Act: (1) permanent maintenance, 

(2) rehabilitative maintenance for a fixed term, (3) rehabilitative maintenance with a review date, 

and (4) maintenance in gross. In re Marriage of Van Hoveln, 2018 IL App (4th) 180112, ¶ 30. 

“Rehabilitative maintenance is intended to assist and encourage dependent spouses to become 

financially independent.” Id. The recipients of rehabilitative maintenance are “under an 

affirmative obligation to seek appropriate training and skills to become financially independent 

in the future.” In re Marriage of Henzler, 134 Ill. App. 3d 318, 322 (1985). There is also an 

affirmative obligation on a former spouse receiving rehabilitative maintenance to find 

appropriate employment. In re Marriage of Courtright, 229 Ill. App. 3d 1089, 1091 (1992).

When seeking extension of a rehabilitative maintenance award, it is the recipient’s burden to 

show that he or she has met this affirmative duty. Id. 
13 

¶ 35 The “optimal goal” underlying maintenance is financial independence. In re Marriage of 

Lenkner, 241 Ill. App. 3d 15, 25 (1993). Yet, this goal is often unachievable where a certain 

standard of living was established during the marriage and the former spouses possess grossly 

disparate earning potentials. See id. A former spouse should not be required to lower the 

standard of living enjoyed during the marriage as long as the payor spouse possesses sufficient 

assets to meet the needs of both parties. See In re Marriage of Walker, 386 Ill. App. 3d 1034, 

1044 (2008). As such, the court seeks to balance the goal of financial independence with the 

realistic likelihood that a dependent former spouse may support himself or herself “in some 

reasonable approximation of the standard of living established during the marriage.” Lenkner, 

241 Ill. App. 3d at 25.

¶ 36 C. Scope of Limited Review

¶ 37 The Second District remanded this cause with direction to apply a de novo review of 

section 504 that was in place at the time of the parties’ dissolution. See Chapa IV, 2022 IL App 

(2d) 210772, ¶ 74. The law-of-the-case doctrine limits relitigating previously decided issues 

stemming from the same case and applies to “questions of law on remand to the trial court, as 

well as on subsequent appeals to the appellate court.” Rommel v. Illinois State Toll Highway 

Authority, 2013 IL App (2d) 120273, ¶ 15. The Second District directed the circuit court to 

review Nancy’s petition through the version of the statute in effect on April 27, 2012—the 

effective date of the parties’ dissolution judgment—and we do not disturb that finding for the 

purposes of this appeal. See Chapa IV, 2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶ 74. By doing so, we decline 

to take a position on which version of section 504 applies to review of maintenance awards 

entered prior to the amendment of the statute.
14 

¶ 38 In 2012, section 504(a) of the Act set forth 11 specific factors and 1 catchall factor for the 

court’s consideration to determine whether to grant a maintenance award request: 

“(1) the income and property of each party, including marital property 

apportioned and non-marital property assigned to the party seeking maintenance;

(2) the needs of each party;

(3) the present and future earning capacity of each party;

(4) any impairment of the present and future earning capacity of the party seeking 

maintenance due to that party devoting time to domestic duties or having forgone 

or delayed education, training, employment, or career opportunities due to the 

marriage;

(5) the time necessary to enable the party seeking maintenance to acquire 

appropriate education, training, and employment, and whether that party is able to 

support himself or herself through appropriate employment or is the custodian of 

a child making it appropriate that the custodian not seek employment;

(6) the standard of living established during the marriage;

(7) the duration of the marriage;

(8) the age and the physical and emotional condition of both parties;

(9) the tax consequences of the property division upon the respective economic 

circumstances of the parties;

(10) contributions and services by the party seeking maintenance to the education, 

training, career or career potential, or license of the other spouse; 

(11) any valid agreement of the parties; and
15 

(12) any other factor that the court expressly finds to be just and equitable.” 750 

ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2012). 

The parties’ dissolution judgment directed the court to add Nancy’s efforts to become selfsupporting to its section 504(a) analysis and consider the maintenance award anew. Chapa IV, 

2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶ 39. Although all relevant statutory factors must be considered, a 

circuit court need not make specific findings as to the reasons for its decision. In re Marriage of 

Reynard, 378 Ill. App. 3d 997, 1004 (2008). A court need not give equal weight to each factor 

“so long as the balance struck by the court is reasonable under the circumstances.” In re 

Marriage of Miller, 231 Ill. App. 3d 480, 485 (1992) (holding that the circuit court’s refusal to 

award former spouse maintenance was not an abuse of discretion, despite the appearance of a 

heavy influence of two 504(a) factors on the court’s decision).

¶ 39 D. Weight Given to Nancy’s Efforts to Become Self-Supporting 

¶ 40 In its January 23, 2023, order, the circuit court conducted its limited review by 

considering the twelve factors under section 504(a) that were in place at the time of the parties’ 

dissolution and reviewed Nancy’s efforts to rehabilitate herself during the period she was 

awarded maintenance. Despite the court’s explicit section 504(a) findings in the order, Nancy 

alleges the court ignored these factors in denying her petition for extended maintenance. Instead 

of giving these factors their due contemplation, Nancy maintains, the court’s determination that 

she did not use her best efforts to become self-supporting overshadowed other section 504(a)

considerations when denying her petition. 

¶ 41 We begin with an important clarification in the Second District’s prior decision in this 

case that evidence of Nancy’s best efforts was not a prerequisite to an extension of her 

maintenance award. Rather, per the limited review in place, our sister district found that the 
16 

circuit court must conduct a de novo review under section 504(a) of the Act and also consider 

any rehabilitative evidence from Nancy. Chapa IV, 2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶ 34. 

¶ 42 We believe the Second District adequately characterized the circuit court’s limited review 

responsibility in its initial disposition stemming from the parties’ first appeal of their dissolution 

judgment: “Its decision will be made anew based on the factors set forth in section 504 of the Act 

[citation], and, presumably, *** a major factor will be the degree to which Nancy improved her 

ability to support herself.” Chapa I, 2013 IL App (2d) 120745-U, ¶ 35. The complete disregard 

of the factors, and not the incorrect weighing of the considerations listed in the court’s limited 

review, was the prior error. See Chapa IV, 2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶ 39 (“Essentially, the 

judgment directed the court to add Nancy's efforts to become self-supporting to the section 

504(a) factors and consider its maintenance award anew.”). There is no requirement that all 

relevant section 504 factors be given equal weight, so long as a reasonable balance is struck 

under the circumstances. See Miller, 231 Ill. App. 3d at 485. 

¶ 43 In support of her argument that the court improperly focused on its perception that Nancy 

failed to carry her rehabilitative burden by showing best efforts to become self-supporting, 

Nancy cites three Illinois appellate decisions, all of which we find inapposite to the case before 

us. Nancy analogizes two recent nonprecedential orders, Micheli and Free, to the matter at hand.

In re Marriage of Micheli, 2022 IL App (2d) 200704-U, ¶¶ 45-46; In re Marriage of Free, 2023 

IL App (1st) 211466-U, ¶ 59; Ill. S. Ct. R. 23(e)(1) (eff. Feb. 1, 2023). We find both dispositions 

factually inapposite and unsupportive of her position. Micheli remanded the cause because the 

circuit court had mischaracterized the recipient spouse’s maintenance award as rehabilitative, 

and it only considered one of the party’s circumstances in its section 504(a) analysis. Micheli, 

2022 IL App (2d) 200704-U, ¶ 46. In contrast, here, Nancy’s maintenance award “was intended 
17 

to be partially rehabilitative,” and the court analyzed the statutory factors in relation to both 

parties and, for certain portions, explicitly differentiated Daniel’s and Nancy’s circumstances

including their respective incomes, earning capacities, ages, and physical and emotional 

conditions. Chapa IV, 2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶ 39; 750 ILCS 5/504(a)(1), (3), (4), (8) (West 

2012). Dissimilar to the circumstances presented in Free where the recipient spouse “showed 

diligence in her post-dissolution educational endeavors and in her job search,” in the timeframe 

that Nancy resumed working (beginning two years post-dissolution), her work hours have 

dwindled to almost zero with no discernable impediments to her health or capabilities and her 

attendance at scripture school has been sporadic. Free, 2023 IL App (1st) 211466-U, ¶¶ 11, 58. 

¶ 44 Nancy also draws comparison to Carpel, where the Fourth District held the lower court 

abused its discretion by denying an extension and increase of maintenance to a homemaker from 

her ex-spouse, an attorney, after the parties’ 17-year marriage ended, a partnership the court 

characterized as both “moral and financial[.]” In re Marriage of Carpel, 232 Ill. App. 3d 806, 

809-10, 829-30 (1992). At the time of dissolution, the parties were 45 and 46 years old, and the 

homemaker was awarded $750 in monthly rehabilitative maintenance for four years. Id. at 809-

10. Three years after dissolution, the homemaker filed for an extension and increase of her 

maintenance award. Id. at 824. The circuit court held that the homemaker’s inability to procure 

“adequate employment” during the maintenance period was a failure that warranted the denial of 

her petition for extension. Id. at 828. The appellate court reversed, explaining that “ 

‘[e]mployment or potential employment of the spouse seeking [maintenance] is only one factor 

to consider in determining whether [maintenance] should be awarded, and its duration.’ ” Id. at 

830 (quoting In re Marriage of Bramson, 100 Ill. App. 3d 657, 659 (1981)). 
18 

¶ 45 We are not inconsiderate of the similarities shared between the facts in Carpel and the 

matter at hand. Both featured lengthy marriages during which an arrangement was struck where 

one spouse served as the income earner and the other served as homemaker. See id. at 829. The 

homemaker’s sacrifice in support of their partner’s career accounted for the homemaker’s 

extended nonparticipation in the workforce—in Nancy’s case, 22 years. Id. Not only did this 

depreciate the homemaker’s professional marketability but resulted in a gross income disparity 

with their ex-spouse. Id. at 829-30. A seminal difference is the additional factors the court 

considered when denying Nancy’s petition. In addition to finding that Nancy failed her burden of 

showing her best efforts to become self-supporting, the court found that during the review 

timeframe Daniel depleted his retirement accounts to support this litigation and is now 62 years 

old, which places a limitation on his future earning capacity. 750 ILCS 5/504(a)(3), (8) (West 

2012). While the Carpel decision addresses the error of barring Nancy’s petition exclusively for 

her failure to show best efforts of becoming self-sufficient, the court on remand has corrected the 

deficiency in its prior order by conducting a complete section 504 analysis. Id. at 830. A contrary 

holding would, in essence, negate the court’s discretion in evaluating whether a recipient of 

rehabilitative maintenance has met his or her burden. Courtright, 229 Ill. App. 3d at 1091 (“If 

one fails to make a good faith effort to become self-sufficient, a court may terminate 

rehabilitative maintenance.”). 

¶ 46 Relatedly, Nancy argues that the court’s finding concerning her failure to seek 

employment mirrors the “dated” reasoning from Cantrell. In re Marriage of Cantrell, 314 Ill. 

App. 3d 623, 630 (2000). She advances that the circumstances in a more recent decision, Brunke, 

bear similarity to the facts underlying her petition and the ruling which extended a wife’s 

maintenance is indicative of a trend of recent appellate decisions. In re Marriage of Brunke, 
19 

2019 IL App (2d) 190201, ¶ 37. The factor that moved the goalpost in Brunke was age; the 

recipient spouse in Brunke was 62 years old at the time the parties’ marriage was dissolved and 

68 years old at the time of trial on her petitions to extend and increase her maintenance, whereas

the payor spouse was 53 years old at the time of dissolution and 59 years old at the time of trial. 

Brunke, 2019 IL App (2d) 190201, ¶¶ 3, 6. In Cantrell, it was “evident from the context that” the 

wife seeking an extension of maintenance “was not of advancing years.” Id. ¶ 36. 

¶ 47 Despite Nancy’s efforts to distinguish Cantrell, the similarities it shares with her case are 

inescapable. Nancy was 50 years old when the dissolution order was entered. Nancy has a 

bachelor’s degree, as did the former wife in Cantrell. Cantrell, 314 Ill. App. 3d at 630. At the 

time of dissolution, Nancy was employable, had “received a substantial amount of the marital 

assets, and she ha[d] no apparent health impairments that might restrict her from working.” Id. 

Although her daughter lived with her until 2014, her children became emancipated during the 

period in which she was receiving maintenance. Id. A similar combination of circumstances was

sufficient for the Cantrell court to hold that the trial court had abused its discretion when failing 

to grant the former husband’s motion to terminate after the recipient spouse “had done little 

toward finding gainful employment or advancing her efforts at becoming self-sufficient” in the 

four years since her graduation. Id. Here, Nancy had over seven years to establish her best efforts 

towards self-sufficiency; two years were spent looking after her daughter as she prepared for 

college, but the remaining five years resulted in an overall decrease of part-time work. While not 

determinative, a notable distinction from the facts presented here to the cases Nancy cites 

concerning this issue is the increase in the payor spouse’s income following dissolution. 

Cantrell, 314 Ill. App. 3d at 627; Brunke, 2019 IL App (2d) 190201, ¶ 16; Micheli, 2022 IL App 

(2d) 200704-U, ¶¶ 15, 23; Free, 2023 IL App (1st) 211466-U, ¶¶ 5, 24-25, 51; In re Marriage of 
20 

Kasprzyk, 2019 IL App (4th) 170838, ¶¶ 3, 13 45; cf. In re Marriage of Kuper, 2019 IL App (3d) 

180094, ¶¶ 7-8, 25 (upholding circuit court’s treatment of payor spouse’s $946,142.07 

inheritance in post-dissolution assets as monthly income despite his retirement). While we are 

mindful of the parties’ continued substantial income disparity, Daniel’s income has decreased, 

and he has withdrawn from his retirement funds, which were facts the court appropriately 

considered in its section 504(a) analysis.

6 750 ILCS 5/504(a)(1) (West 2012). 

¶ 48 We cannot say the court abused its discretion in denying Nancy’s petition for an 

extension of her maintenance award and thereby terminating Daniel’s maintenance obligation. Its 

January 23, 2023, order contemplated the relevant statutory 504(a) factors mandated in its 

limited review. Further, the focus on Nancy’s failure to provide evidence of her best efforts to 

become self-supporting is consistent with the record. The record reveals that Nancy did not work 

after the dissolution judgment was entered in 2012 until 2014. Nancy has a bachelor’s degree in 

finance and was once the vice president of a bank in Dallas, Texas. Equally notable, at the time 

of dissolution she was a homemaker and was primarily responsible for rearing the parties’ 

children. This left a 22-year gap in her resume. She largely credits taking care of her daughter, 

who was of high school age between 2012 and 2014, as the reason why she did not work 

immediately after the marriage was dissolved. In late 2014, she obtained a job as a seasonal 

greeter at L'Occitane, making $10 an hour. This employment opportunity concluded at the start 

of the 2015 calendar year. She then became employed on a part-time basis at a sporting goods 

6

While the dissipation of Daniel’s retirement account is a valid consideration in the court’s 504(a) 

analysis as to his property, we make clear that the court’s inverse consideration—that Nancy has not 

withdrawn from her retirement accounts—is neither prohibitive to her maintenance extension request nor 

an appropriate consideration in evaluating her petition. See Carpel, 232 Ill. App. 3d at 828 (“[T]he duty to 

seek financial independence does not require the party receiving maintenance to liquidate his or her assets 

in order to achieve that independence.”). Nevertheless, based on the record it does not appear that this 

consideration materially influenced the court’s denial of Nancy’s petition. 
21 

store in 2015. Her hours, however, have consistently declined in the ensuing years. Although she 

has cited the deterioration of her family member’s health and their eventual passing as 

contributing factors to her inability to procure work, the four-week long trip in 2017, for 

instance, to attend to her relatives cannot be deemed a substantial impediment to search for and 

obtain substantial employment. Further, the veracity of her application efforts remains unclear. 

While she testified to various online job applications made from late 2019 to early 2020, she 

failed to produce evidence of those efforts in discovery or corroborate those efforts at trial 

beyond her self-serving “job diary.” 

¶ 49 While she has returned to education by enrolling in scripture school, her testimony 

indicates that she did so out of fascination for the subject material and not for employability 

purposes. Further, her testimony indicates equivocation on her commitment to the program’s 

completion. In sum, we cannot fault the court’s finding that Nancy failed to produce evidence of 

her best efforts to become self-supporting. See In re Marriage of Callaway, 150 Ill. App. 3d 712, 

717 (1986) (stating payments should be terminated when at the end of a review period, the 

recipient spouse has failed to make a “bona fide attempt to seek appropriate employment or *** 

refused to accept employment appropriate to [his or] her skills or interests”). Due to our holding 

that the court permissibly conducted its limited review in denying Nancy’s petition for extension, 

we find that addressing Nancy’s challenge to the circuit court’s findings for each factor listed in 

section 504(a) is unneeded. 

¶ 50 E. Nonstatutory Considerations

¶ 51 Next, Nancy asserts that the court improperly considered nonstatutory factors to deny her 

extension request. Specifically, the January 23, 2023, order identified Nancy’s noncooperation 

with the sale of the marital home, defiance of court orders, lack of respect for the judicial system, 
22 

and an unsubstantiated belief that Nancy received undisclosed financial support without 

expressly finding these were just and equitable considerations for denying her petition. “Given 

the variety of considerations and the need to tailor maintenance to the circumstances in each 

case, the court has wide discretion in determining whether maintenance is warranted.” In re 

Marriage of Watson & Cox, 2022 IL App (2d) 210137, ¶ 35. In determining whether to award

maintenance, a court may consider any other factor beyond those listed in section 504(a) as long 

as it “expressly finds” the factors “to be just and equitable.” 750 ILCS 5/504(a)(12) (West 2012). 

¶ 52 In its December 9, 2021, order, the circuit court denounced certain behavior by Nancy, 

and this behavior was intertwined with its conclusion that she had failed to make a showing of

sufficient self-supporting efforts. The Second District identified the court’s additional 

considerations as “Nancy’s litigiousness, her perceived lack of respect for the judicial system, 

her demonstrated lack of regard for court orders, her purposeful delay of the sale of the 

residence, and her alleged receipt of support from another person” and explained that it abused 

its discretion by relying on these factors to deny Nancy’s petition without an express finding that 

they were just and equitable considerations. Chapa IV, 2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶¶ 44-46. 

¶ 53 It is Nancy’s position that the circuit court erred in its January 23, 2023, order by 

including the identical nonstatutory factors, rebuked by the Second District, and thereby 

impermissibly considering them in denying her petition. We disagree. Nancy first cites a portion 

of the order that details her noncooperation with the sale of the marital home and Daniel’s 

obligation to respond and defend the various appeals pertaining to the parties’ dissolution 

judgment. As a foreword to its maintenance review, the court recounted a brief history of the 

parties’ litigation within its order, including the entry of the dissolution judgment, the sale of the 

marital residence, and the ensuing period until Nancy petitioned for extension of her 
23 

maintenance award. Regarding the sale of the marital residence, the court explained, “Nancy did 

not cooperate with the selling of the house,” resulting in litigation, and despite a court directive 

in the dissolution judgment to promptly list and sell, three and a half years elapsed before the

parties sold their home. The court’s order separated its limited review analysis under section 504 

and Nancy’s self-supporting efforts from the portion recounting the parties’ litigation history. As 

such, we read this as nothing more than procedural history and a precursor to the court’s 

maintenance review, not improper nonstatutory factors considered in denying her extension 

request. Nor do we believe the court’s recitation incorrect. As the Second District explained, the

delays in the sale of the marital home were “in large part caused by Nancy’s refusal to comply 

with the terms of the [dissolution] judgment[.]” Id. ¶ 9. 

¶ 54 Second, Nancy takes issue with other findings that traversed the court’s December 9, 

2023, order into the January 23, 2023, order that were previously found as improper 

considerations by the Second District. This includes findings that Nancy’s courtroom conduct 

was “vulgar and offensive,” that she delayed the sale of the marital home, and that she failed to 

follow “the clear Orders of” the court. But as is the case with the procedural history portion of 

the court’s order, and distinct from its prior order, the court isolated these findings under a 

portion of the order that analyzed Nancy’s credibility which was separated from its limited 

review of Nancy’s petition. We hold that Nancy’s “perceived lack of respect for the judicial 

system, her demonstrated lack of regard for court orders, [and] her purposeful delay of the sale of 

the residence” were appropriate considerations to evaluate Nancy’s credibility. Chapa IV, 2022 

IL App (2d) 210772, ¶ 45; In re Marriage of Sturm, 2012 IL App (4th) 110559, ¶ 6 (“Questions 

of witness credibility and conflicting evidence are matters for the trial judge to resolve as the 

trier of fact.”). We are concerned, however, with the court’s unsubstantiated “belie[f]” that 
24 

Nancy “may possibly be receiving support from another person and has not disclosed that 

support[.]” This finding appears to be based on the court’s extrapolation of how Nancy can 

survive on her reported modest means but is wholly unsupported from the evidence or testimony 

adduced at the March 9, 2020, and August 26, 2021, hearings. While an improper credibility 

finding, we nonetheless hold it too was separated from the court’s proper limited review and was 

not an improper nonstatutory consideration in denying her petition. See Chapa IV, 2022 IL App 

(2d) 210772, ¶ 45. 

¶ 55 F. Petition for Contribution

¶ 56 Nancy next argues that the circuit court erred by failing to consider the necessary 

statutory factors in considering her attorney fees petition. Nancy filed a petition for interim and 

prospective attorney fees and costs pursuant to sections 501 and 508 of the Act. 750 ILCS 5/501, 

508 (West 2020). Upon remand, after disagreeing with the Second District’s characterization that 

this petition was one for contribution, the court directed Daniel to pay Nancy $2000 for attorney 

fees. This award, Nancy argues, does little to assist her in affording the $15,422.64 outstanding 

balance that she owes her attorney. “The circuit court's decision to award attorney fees will not 

be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” In re Marriage of Heroy, 2017 IL 120205, ¶ 13. A 

circuit court abuses its discretion when “it applies an improper legal standard.” In re Marriage of 

Heasley, 2014 IL App (2d) 130937, ¶ 31. 

¶ 57 A circuit court may order either party to pay the opposing party’s reasonable attorney 

fees at the conclusion of a dissolution proceeding. See In re Marriage of Anderson, 2015 IL App 

(3d) 140257, ¶ 12; 750 ILCS 5/508(a) (West 2022). When considering a party's postjudgment fee 

petition, the trial court “must (1) ‘consider[ ] the financial resources of the parties’ and (2) make 

its decision on a petition for contribution ‘in accordance with subsection (j) of section 503.’ ” 
25 

Chapa IV, 2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶ 52 (quoting Heroy, 2017 IL 120205, ¶ 17). Section 503(j) 

requires that any award of contribution “shall be based on the criteria for division of marital 

property under this Section 503 and, if maintenance has been awarded, on the criteria for an 

award of maintenance under Section 504.” 750 ILCS 5/503(j)(2) (West 2020). In fashioning an 

attorney fees award, the circuit court considers the parties’ finances, “including the allocation of 

assets and liabilities, maintenance and the parties’ relative earning abilities.” Anderson, 2015 IL 

App (3d) 140257, ¶ 12. 

¶ 58 The contribution portion of the court’s January 23, 2023, order focuses on the attorney 

fees disparity between the parties, the greater of which was incurred by Daniel. However, the 

court also identifies that Nancy earns less than Daniel, but that Daniel withdrew significant funds 

from his retirement account to pay his attorney fees. Such findings, while not expressly 

identified, seem to contemplate the present earning capacities of the parties and dissipation of 

Daniel’s non-marital property. See 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(1) (West 2012); see also 750 ILCS 

5/504(a)(2)-(3) (West 2012). While this indicates that the court has considered some of the 

relevant factors in fashioning its $2000 fee award, the record does not support that the court has 

“consider[ed] all of the relevant factors” pertaining to Nancy’s fee petition as is required. 

(Emphasis in original.) Chapa IV, 2022 IL App (2d) 210772, ¶ 55. The court did not cite the 

relevant statutory factors and failed to provide its basis for its contribution award in light of the 

size of Nancy’s outstanding fees and the imbalance between the expenditures made by the parties 

for their representation. The fact Daniel withdrew funds from his retirement account to fund his 

representation does little to compromise his superior financial position to contribute to Nancy’s

attorney fees. Based on the finances of the parties, we hold that the court’s contribution award of 

$2000 failed to take into account Nancy’s ability to pay her attorney fees. See Heroy, 2017 IL 
26 

120205, ¶¶ 19, 21. Further, we find that the court’s failure to identify the relevant statutory 

factors in granting its attorney fee award resulted in the application of the improper legal 

standard, and its failure to rationalize its fee award amounted to an abuse of its discretion. Id. ¶ 

13. Under normal circumstances, we would remand this case to the circuit court to reassess the 

award of attorney fees. However, in an effort to provide closure to the parties after seven 

appeals, and because of the disparity in the parties’ resources and fee expenditures, we find it 

reasonable to order Daniel to contribute the balance of Nancy’s attorney fees. Pursuant to Illinois 

Supreme Court Rule 366, we modify the court’s order by increasing Nancy’s attorney fees award

to $15,422.64. Ill. S. Ct. R. 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); see In re Estate of Johnson, 219 Ill. 

App. 3d 962, 967-68 (1991). 

¶ 59 G. Denial Reopening Proofs

¶ 60 Nancy next argues that the court abused its discretion when denying her motion to reopen 

proofs. Her motion alleged that after this matter was remanded, and prior to the court’s redenial 

of her petition, Nancy endured serious injuries in a car accident that rendered her unable to work. 

When weighing a decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen proofs, circuit courts consider 

“whether there is some excuse for the failure to introduce the evidence at trial, whether the other 

party will be surprised or unfairly prejudiced by the new evidence, whether the evidence is of 

utmost importance to the movant's case, and whether there are cogent reasons for denying the 

motion.” In re Marriage of Drone, 217 Ill. App. 3d 758, 766 (1991). The denial of a motion to 

reopen proofs is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a 

clear abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Sawicki, 346 Ill. App. 3d 1107, 1120 (2004).

¶ 61 In denying her motion, the court noted that the trial on Nancy’s underlying petition 

occurred 18 months prior. While the circumstances alleged in her motion may be of the “utmost 
27 

importance” to her seeking full-time employment prospectively, this “likely would not have 

materially altered the trial court’s judgment” based on the deficiencies in presenting her best 

efforts to procure self-sufficiency leading up to her petition. In re Marriage of Suarez, 148 Ill. 

App. 3d 849, 861 (1986) (citing In re Marriage of Weinstein, 128 Ill. App. 3d 234, 249 (1984)). 

The significance of Nancy’s inability to obtain work going forward bears no relation to her 

efforts to become self-sufficient during the relevant review timeframe of April 2012 to 

September 2019. Further, the court’s section 504(a) analysis accounted for Nancy’s diminished 

earning capacity, which it described as “limited.” Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in 

the court’s denial of Nancy’s post-trial motion to reopen proofs. 

¶ 62 H. Partiality of the Court

¶ 63 Broadly, the remainder of Nancy’s appellate arguments question the circuit court’s 

capacity to rule on her petition for extension. She contends that it was wrong for the court to 

reassume the case on remand following the Second District’s mandate, that the judge was biased 

against her in its ruling, and that reassignment is warranted should the case be remanded again. 

Pertaining to her improper reassumption argument, Nancy directs our attention to local rule 

1.34(a) which requires a remanded case to be set in the courtroom from which it was appealed. 

18th Judicial Cir. Ct. R. 1.34(a) (Mar. 23, 2006). Local rule 1.34(a) provides that: 

“When a reviewing court remands a case for further proceedings, and the mandate 

has been filed in the Circuit Court, the Circuit Court Clerk shall assign the case a 

remand status date within thirty (30) days of the mandate being filed. The case 

shall be set in the courtroom from which the case was appealed.” Id. 

¶ 64 We interpret court rules utilizing “the same principles that guide our construction of 

statutes” and “[t]he construction of a rule is a question of law” compelling de novo review. VC & 
28 

M, Ltd. v. Andrews, 2013 IL 114445, ¶ 30. While the language of a statute is the best indication 

of legislative intent, “[i]t is also true that statutes must be construed to avoid absurd results.” 

Dawkins v. Fitness International, LLC, 2022 IL 127561, ¶ 27. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 21 

permits circuit courts to adopt rules governing civil and criminal matters “to provide for the 

orderly disposition of cases.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 21(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2023); People v. Williams, 137 Ill. 

App. 3d 460, 460 (1985). These rules are not mere technicalities, but rather serve as “important 

safeguards for the efficient administration of justice.” In re Marriage of Jackson, 259 Ill. App. 

3d 538, 543 (1994). We view Nancy’s narrow interpretation of local rule 1.34 as antithetical to a 

primary purpose of local rules which is to aid in “ensur[ing] the orderly progression of litigation, 

leading to an efficient and expeditious resolution of disputes.” Id. We hold that in the interests of 

judicial economy and to avoid an absurd result, it was not error for the judge who had 

substantively ruled on this matter to reassume the case on remand. 

¶ 65 As to Nancy’s partiality argument, “[a] trial judge is presumed to be impartial, and the 

burden of overcoming this presumption rests on the party making the charge of prejudice.” 

Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228, 280 (2002). Further, “it is clear that ordinarily the fact that a 

judge has ruled adversely to a party in either a civil or criminal case does not disqualify that 

judge from sitting in subsequent civil or criminal cases in which the same person is a party.” Id. 

Logic dictates that upon remand a judge may preside over the same case in which he or she has 

ruled, absent contrary direction from the appellate court. We bear in mind that here, despite the 

authority to do so, the Second District did not assign this case to a new jurist upon remand. See 

People v. Buchanan, 2013 IL App (2d) 120447, ¶ 26 (noting a reviewing court’s authority to 

assign a case to a new judge on remand should questions arise pertaining to a judge’s 

impartiality). 
29 

¶ 66 Regardless, Nancy identifies two instances of purported judicial partiality occurring after 

this matter was remanded. The first being a back-and-forth between the judge and Nancy’s 

counsel on whether a contribution to her fees was requested during the January 18, 2023, 

hearing. The second was the judge’s statements concerning Nancy’s courtroom behavior in 

issuing its oral ruling, including its determination that she was “vulgar and offensive.” Neither 

instance arises to improper levels of antagonism. Regarding the latter, it is our view that these 

were remarks aimed at Nancy’s credibility “ ‘which is clearly within the purview of the trial 

court.’ ” Id. at 281 (quoting McCormick v. McCormick, 180 Ill. App. 3d 184, 194 (1988)). After 

an extensive review of the record, we find no substantive evidence of any favoritism or 

antagonism. Nonetheless, having resolved each issue pertaining to her appeal, Nancy’s request to 

reassign the matter in the event this cause should be remanded is rendered moot. 

¶ 67 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 68 The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed as modified. The 

petitioner is ordered to contribute to respondent’s attorney fees in the amount of $15,422.64. 

¶ 69 Affirmed as modified.