SIXTH DIVISION Decem ber 12, 2008

Nos. 1 -07-01 35 & 1-07-21 42, Co ns. In re MA RRIA GE OFKA

REN F . EBERH

AR DT, Peti tion er-A ppel l ee, and STEPHEN E. EB ERHA

RDT, Re sp on den

t-A pp el l an t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Ci rc ui t Cou rt of Coo k C oun

ty No. 02 D 10429 Honorables Mark Joseph Lopez an

d Marti n M oltz, Judges Presi

din g.
JUSTICE CA

HILL d eli vered the opi ni on of the court: Resp ond ent St ephe n E. Ebe rha rd t app eals t he t rial co ur t 's de nial of his po st judg ment mot ions fo llowing t he disso lut ion o f his marriag e t o p et itio ner Kare n F. E ber har dt . H e ar gue s t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in: ( 1) de nying his mo t io n t o mo dify c hildsu pp o r t by "d o ub le c o un t ing " h is wi th dr aw als f

rom i n di v i dual re ti re men t ac cou n ts ( IR A s) h e r ec ei

v ed i n th e p rop er

ty settl em en t; (2) deny in g hi s m ot ion f or sanctions; (3) order in

g hi m to pay pa

rt o f K aren's atto rney fees ; an d (4) de ny i ng hi s c l ai med exem ptions to ga rni sh men t. W e a f f i rm i n p art, rev

ers e i n p art a nd rem an d f or a hearin g on at to rney f

ees. The j udgm en t of dissol uti on wa s en

tered i n D ecem ber 2005 . Ka

ren and Steph

en were ma rried i n 1979 an d had three daugh

ters, ages 20, 19 and 13, at t he tim e of the j udgme

nt. Karen wa s g i v en pri mar y cu sto dy of 13 -y ea r-ol d S us an . Ste

ph en wa s or dere d to p ay

$9 82 .58 per m

on th1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

2

in child supp or t base d o n 20% of his pe rso nal net income a s a se lf-employed at t or ney. I n t he allo ca t io n o f mar it al a ss et s, St ep he n r ec eiv ed $1 54 , 34 9. 28 fr o m Kar en as his s ha r e o f t he eq uit y in the f am i l y hom e. Steph en al so rece i

ve d thre e IRAs. Two months later, St ephen fi le d a pro se mot ion t o mo dify chil d su ppo rt . T he pr oc eed ings o n t his mot ion g ener at ed o t her co nt est ed r ulings o n sanc t ions, at t or ney fees a nd garni shm ent. As a resul

t, t wo appeals h

ave b een consol

ida ted and four overl appi

ng m atter s are at i ss ue . W e w i l l

rev i ew each of the se matte rs se

pa rate l y , b eg i nn i ng wi th S tep he n' s m oti on f or m odi f i cation of chi l d sup port. As a preli mi nary m att er, we deny Karen' s motion to strike St ephen's brief and to dism

iss thi s ap peal f or noncom

pli ance wi

th Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 341 (h)(6 ) (210 Il

l . 2d R. 3 41(h

)(6)). Thi s rule requires a

n appel la nt's b rief to contain

"fa cts necessa

ry to an understan

din g of the case, st at ed a ccu ra t ely and fairly witho ut ar gument or co mment, and w ith ap pr op riat e r efer ence t o t he pages of the record." 210 Ill . 2d R. 341(h)(6). It is withi n our disc retion to co nsi

der an appeal des pi te m i ni mal ci tation to the record

i n the app el

l an t's s tatem en t of f acts. Silny v. Lo re ns , 73 I ll. App. 3d 638, 392 N.E.2d 267 (1979). Stephen' s brief i s suf fi ci ent for revi

ew. Stephen f il ed a m ot ion to modi fy

chi ld s upport on February

23, 2006. He repor ted a subs t ant ial change in circu msta nces beca use he had $0 inco me in the firs t t wo mont hs o f 200 6 and he ex pected hi s ann

ual personal in come to be subs

tantial ly le ss than i

n 2005. He attached a fi nan ci al dis cl osure stat em

ent, showin

g a bal ance of $71,249.63 in a

"house & IRA

proceeds acc ount." K

aren, who was re

pres en ted b y her brother, attorney

Robe rt H. Fa rl ey, Jr., res

ponde d. Farley argued St ephen was not entitled to a modif ication b ecause he had wi thdrawn t he IRA1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

3

f un dshe rec ei ve d i n th e p rope rty settl em en t an d suc h proce ed s m

us t be cou nte d a s " i nc ome" f or cal cul ati ng c hi l d sup port unde r In re Marri age of Li

ndm an , 356 Ill . App. 3d 462, 824 N.E.2d 1219 ( 2005) . Fa r ley a lso filed a p et it io n fo rrule t o sho w c au se as t o wh y St ep he n sh o uld no t be he ld in contempt for vi

olatin g the terms of the di

ssolution. The alle gations were that Stephen: (1) f ai le d t o p ay child sup po rt and he alth insu ra nce; ( 2) failed t o p ay Sus an's high sc hoo l tu itio n; (3 ) sp ent t hou sand s o f do llars o n White S ox t icket s and had $ 71, 000 in a bank a cco unt and a $10 0, 000 line of c re dit while faili

ng t o mee t his sup po rt obligat ions; ( 4) failed t o p ay the co llege exp ense s o f the couple' s two o lde

r daughters; (5) fa

il ed to pay for Susan' s extracurricul ar activi ties an d uncovered me dic al expenses; a

nd (6) fa il ed to pay Susan' s rem

ai ni ng gram ma r school ex

penses . Farle

y l ater wi thdre w the l ast two cl

ai m s. Th e tri al cou rt h el d a com bi ne d hea ri ng on th e p eti ti on f or rul e to s how

ca us e a nd on Ste ph en ' s m oti on to m odi f y ch i l d suppor t on Nov em b er 2, 2 00 6. S teph en

f i rs t ob j ec ted to exh ibits attached to a mem

orandum F arley

had sub mi tt ed ex par

tet o t he t r ial j ud ge ju st da ys befo re t he hea ring. The judg e sa id he had not re ad Fa rley's memo o r lo ok ed a t t he exhibits and admoni shed both part ies to "foll ow t he rules." Stephen, Karen

and two of their three daugh ters test if ie d at the heari

ng. Stephen adm

itted wi thdra wi ng IRA f unds of $8,065 .24 on J

an uary 31, 200 6, an

d $5,75 9.30 on

Feb ruary 17, 200 6. He adm itted a fi nan ci al dis cl osure stat em

ent he sub mi tt ed on October 1, 2006, did not refl ect thes e wi thdra wals. The trial court deni

ed Stephen' s m

ot ion to reduce chi

ld s upport , fi ndi ng no sub stantial1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

4

cha nge i n ci rcumstance s. The c ourt also f ound Stephen i

n con tempt, stati

ng: "I tr ul y don't u nd ers tan d a rec ord l i kethi s w he re, Mr . Eb erh

ard t, y ou te l l me y ou get $15 4,000 i

n a buy out. You get IRA

di stri buti ons, w hi ch clearl y are i nc ome . Had y ou expl ai ned a l ittle bit better in

terms of y

our clear and c onvi

nci ng burden that you [paid] deb

ts with these [distributions] and y ou subm itted cancel

le d checks, recei

pts for paym

ents, to give m

e some reas on to bel

ie ve y our representat ions, then m

ayb e you mi

ght have somethi

ng there ***. *** [Y] ou just represent these thi

ngs to me; and y

ou expect me j ust to accept [them] at fac e value. Tha t is not what a clea r a nd co nvincing st anda rd is. I t is a higher bur den; and if y ou gave m

e some docum

entation to support it, I mi ght be i ncl in ed to go along wit h you. *** [I t ] d oe sn't so und t o me like s omebo dy who is tr ying to be st ra ight for war d wit h t his Co ur t . I t so unds like so mebod y who is t rying t o be evasi ve an d not give m

e the ful l pi cture.
** * [ Y] ou a

rea p ri v ate pr ac ti ti on er si n ce [1 99 2] to th e ti

me of j udgm en t; an d t he n a ll o f a s ud de n, aft er jud gme nt ; t hing s g o do wn hill; a nd yo u e xp ec t me j ust to acce

pt the f act tha t bus i ne ss i s b ad or thi

ngs are tough

out there[? ] I understand thi

ngs *** go up and down. *** [B]ut to go straight in to the tubes aft er judg ment, t hat do esn't so und ve ry re aso nable t o e xpec t t his Co ur t t o be lieve you. *** I don't. *** [I]t is a very poor record for me to grant you the reli ef that you have b een seeki

ng[,] co unsel ." St ephe n fil

ed a mot ion t o r eco nsider , a rg uing t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d by do uble co unt ing1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

5

his IRA w ithd ra wals a nd misapp lied t he law o n do uble co unt ing in In re Marri age of Li ndm an , 356 Ill . App. 3d 4 62. Af

ter a hea rin g, the tria l court denied Stephe

n' s m otion f or reconsi derati on: "I do not believe there is any thin g in appropriate in

considerin

g IRA di stributions as being inco me. I t hink t hat your co ncer n abo ut not co nsider ing t he do uble co unt ing issue i s mi sguided because that was a smal l part of the reaso n f

or my f in din gs. My con cern wi th y our f ai l ure to mee t your b

urden wa s w ha t I pe rce i ve d a s a l ac k of cre di bi l i ty on y our p art a nd your te sti

mony , th e l ac k of su ppor t of doc um en tati on to support your t estim

ony, the f ai lure to in

cl ude—even

by your own acknowl edgm

ent—the IRA on y

our [fin anci al dis cl osure aff

ida vi t required under the C ook County

ci rcui t court rul es].
*** Further, I have a record where y our moni es seem

to be spen

t o n thi ngs other th an

your court-ordere d obl

i gation. *** [I]f

you pay your sup port[,] ev er y th i n g e l se i s y our b us i n es s; b ut y

ou a recom i n g to th i s c our t aski n g m e to reduce y our co urt-o rdered obli

gation ***. An

d it's your burden

to show m

e that chan ge, one, it occurred, and two , it warrants a m odif ic ation of y

our co urt-o rdered obl i gation, an

d y ou f ail ed i n that rega

rd." The hearin

g cont in ued after t hi s ruli

ng with argumen

ts o n unresolved m

ot ions and petiti ons, in cl udin g requests for sanctions and attorney f ees. These m

atter s are addressed i

ndi vi dual ly la ter in this opini on. The court also purged its f in din g of contempt af

ter Farley report ed Stephen h

ad ful fi ll ed hi s chi ld support obli

gations.1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

6

The mod ifi

cat ion o f child supp or t is go ver ned by se ct ion 5 10 o f the Illinois Mar riag e and Di ssol uti on of Marri age A ct (Act) (750 IL CS 5/5 10 (W est 200 6)). A

paren t's c hi l d-su pport obli gation m ay be m odif ie d if he or she can

show a sub stantial

chan ge i n ci rcumstances. 750 I LC S 5 /5 10 ( a) ( 1) ( We st 20 06 ) . T he pa r t y se ek ing r elie f ha s t he bu r de n o f sh o win g a ch an ge in ci rcum stan ces sub stan tia l enough to wa

rran t a change i

n s upport. In re

Marri age of Si ngl eteary , 293 Ill . A pp. 3d 2 5, 3 4, 6 87 N .E.2 d 10 80 ( 199 7). A ch an gei n i nc ome i s on

e of the grou nds f or m odi f i cation. In re Marri age of Carpen ter , 286 Il l . Ap p. 3d 96 9, 974, 6 77 N.E.2 d 463 ( 1997) . "N et inc o me" is d efin ed in se ct io n 5 05 ( a) ( 3) o f t he Ac t as "t he t o t al o f all inc o me fr o m all sources." 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3) (West 2006). "[T] he Gen eral A ssem bl y h as adopted an expansi ve def in ition of what consti

tut es 'n et inc ome.' ” In re

Marri age of Rogers , 213 Ill . 2d 129, 136, 820 N.E. 2d 386 (2 004). "[T]he relevant focus under section 505 [o f the Act (750 ILCS 5/ 505 (Wes t 200 6) )] is the par ent 's ec ono mic situa t ion at t he t ime the c hild supp or t calcu latio ns are made by

the cou rt. " In re

Marri age of Rogers , 213 Ill . 2d at 138. Step hen argues that t he question of whether the t rial cour t err ed in

count in g hi s IRA wi thd rawals a s i

nc ome u nd er th e A ct i s a que sti on of l aw , su bj ec t to de novo review, citi ng In re Ma rri ag e of Crook, 21 1 Il

l . 2d 437 , 44 2, 8 13 N .E.2 d 19 8 (2 004 ) (w he n th ere are no f ac tua l or credibil ity is sues, questions

of law are revi

ewed de novo ). St atuto ry i nterpretat ion i

s al so subj ect to de novo revi ew. In re

Marri age of Rogers , 213 Il

l . 2d at 13 6-37. In Li ndm an , this court conducted de novo re view o f the legal qu est ion p os ed he re and con cl ude d: " reg ard

l es s of the prop erty settl em en t, th e di sb urs em en ts [th e] p eti ti one r re ce i ve s f rom hi s retirement account a re incom e at t he tim

e they are paid." In re Marri age of Li ndm an , 35 6 I ll.1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

7

App. 3d at 469. But see In re Marri age of O' Dani el , 382 Ill . App. 3d 845, 850, 889 N.E. 2d 254 (2008 ) ( Li

ndm an sh oul d n ot b e r ead to m

ea n th at " anyIR

A di sb ur se men t wou l d c on sti tute i nc ome " (em

phasi s ad ded)). The Li ndm an co ur t re lied on In re Marri age of K lom ps , 286 Ill . App. 3d 710, 676 N.E.2d 686 (1997). There we sai d: "If we we re to allow retirem

ent in come to be excl

uded from

net i nc ome wh en setti ng c hi l d sup port me rel y be caus e those

bene f i ts, pri or to thei r rece i pt, were used t o d et er mine an equ itable d istr ibut ion o f the par t ies' marit al pr op er t y, we wo uld be a dding pr ovisio ns t o t he Act t hat do not exist . We will not t wist t he clea r meaning of t he Act t o invent an o t he rwis e n o ne xist en t rule t ha t wo uld be co nt r ar y t o t he pu r po se o f mak ing 'r ea so na ble pro vi sion f

or spo uses and m

in or children during and af

ter litigation.' [Ci

tat ion.]" In re Marri age of Kl omps , 286 Ill . App. 3d at 716-17. Under Li ndm an and Kl omps , S t ephe n's qu est ion o f whet her , a s a mat t er of law , t he I RAs awa rd ed t o him in the pr op er t y set t lement c an be r ega rd ed a s inco me when liquida t ed mus t be answ er ed in t he affirmat ive. T o a void t his res ult , S t ephe n dire ct s us t o a sec t ion ad ded by the co ur t in Li

ndm an , discus si

ng "a pote nti al 'd oub l e c oun

ti ng ' i ss ue " th at the p eti ti one r th ere di d n ot rai se. In re Marri age of Li ndm an , 356 Ill . App. 3d at 470. The court descri bed a h ypothetic al si tuati on wh

ere i m proper doubl e coun

tin g coul d occur i f the e arn i ngs depos i ted i n a n IR A w ere coun ted asi nc ome wh en they were earn ed an d aga i n f i ve years l ater wh en wi thdra wn . In re Marriage of Li ndm an , 3 56 I ll. App. 3d a t 470 . " To avo id do uble co unt ing in this sit uat ion, t he co ur t may have t o d et er mine what per cent age of t he I RA mone y was co nsider ed in t he year one net incom e calcul ation and discount the year fi ve net in come calcul

ation accor din

gly." In re1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

8

Marriage of Li ndm an , 356 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 470. Th i s i s n ot the the ory

Stephen advances here. St ephe n's exa ct ar gument , t hat impro per do uble co unt ing o ccu rs w hen I RAs aw ar ded in a pr o pe r t y se t t leme nt ar e liq uid at ed an d v iew ed as inc o me, wa s r ec en t ly co nsid er ed an d r eje ct ed in a Ma ssa ch usetts appe l l ate court opi

ni on, Croa k v . Be rge ron , 67 Mass. App. Ct. 750, 753, 856 N. E. 2d 9 00, 903 (2 006 ). Altho ugh ne ither par t y has cit ed t his case and fo re ign judg ments have no ef f ect i n Il l i noi s, the cas e i s i nstructi ve . In Croak , as here, the f

ather argued "i

t was im proper 'double-counti

ng' to treat fun

ds prematurel

y w ithdrawn from hi s IRAs as i

ncom e for chi ld s upport purposes as those fun ds had already been di vided as part of the mari

tal estat e upon divorce." Croak , 67 Mass. App. Ct. at 753, 856 N.E.2d at 903. The court disagreed: "[T]he [trial ] judge f ound that [t he f

ather] had a patt ern of nondis closure and evasion with respect t o his f in ances." Croak , 67 Mass. App. Ct. at 755, 856 N.E.2d at 905. "[W]e percei ve n ot hi ng i n [the f ather's] argum

ent that the judge en

gaged in im pr op er 'do uble co unt ing' (o r 'd ou ble dipping ') by t re at ing his IRA fund s 'as bo t h asse t s in the pr operty di v i si on an d l ate r, a s i n com e w h en [the f ath er ] l i qui da ted th em ,'th at w oul

d c au se usto disturb the judgmen

t. " Croak , 67 Mass. A

pp. Ct. at 75 8, 856 N .E.2d at 90 7. " ' Com men tators use the phrase

"doubl e di

ppin g" to describe the s eem

in g in jus tice t ha t o cc ur s w he n p r o pe r t y is awarded to o ne spouse i

n an equi table dis tributi on of m

arital assets and i

s then al so conside

red as a source o f i

ncome f or p urpo ses of i

mposin g suppor t o bl

igations.' " Croak , 67 Mass. App. Ct. at 758-59, 856 N.E. 2d at 907, quo ting Ch am pion v . Ch

am pion , 54 Mass. App. Ct. 215, 219, 764 N.E.2d 898, 902 ( 2002). The court found that nothi ng i n the state's suprem

e court r uli

ngs "prohibi ts do ubl e dippi

ng as m att er of law." Croak , 67 Mass. App. Ct. at 759, 856 N.E .2d at1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

9

907. "Rat her, *** t he j udge must look t o t he equiti es of the situation to make her determi nation." Croak , 67 Mass. A

pp. Ct. at 75 9, 856 N .E.2d at 90 7. "Even were we to assume that the concept of double countin

g has appl ic ation i n the presen

t case, and were to assume f urther that t he j udge engage d i n s ome doubl e coun tin g, we woul d concl

ude that, i n the ci rcum stan ces pres en ted h ere ***, a fail ure t o co nsider t he IRAs [as i ncome] would have resul

ted in an i nequity ." Croak , 67 Mass. A pp. Ct. at 759, 856 N.E.2d at 907. The ou t co mes in Croak , Li ndm an and Kl ompsul tim atel y turne d on the f

acts of the c ase . We re view t he t rial co ur t 's fact ual findings in ru ling on a mo t ion t o mo dify chil d su ppo rt unde r t he abuse of d i scre tion stan dard. People ex

rel. Hi nes v . Hin

es , 236 Ill . App. 3d 739, 744, 602 N. E. 2d 9 02 ( 199 2) . An a buse of d iscre t ion o ccu rs w hen no reasonabl e per so n wo uld t ake t he trial court 's vi

ew. Da wd y v. Un i on P ac i f i c R .R. Co. , 207 Ill . 2d 167, 177, 797 N.E .2d 687 ( 20 03 ) . We will allow t he t rial co ur t 's fact ual co nclusio ns t o s t and u nless t hey are aga inst t he
man i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. In re Marri age of Hel debrandt , 301 Ill . App. 3d 265, 267, 703 N.E.2d 939 (1998). "A j udgme nt is agai nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce onl y w hen an oppos i te c onc l us i on i s a ppa ren t or wh en f i nd i ng s a ppe ar to b e u

nr ea son ab l e, a rb i trar y , or n ot based on ev

ide nce.” Baz ydlo v. Vo lant , 164 Il l . 2d 207 , 215, 64 7 N.E.2d 273 (1 995). Her e, as in Croak , the c ourt foun d Steph en to be ev asi ve and l ess than strai ghtf orward ab out hi s f

i na nc es. It f ound a pattern of n ondiscl osure. Th

e court di d not b el i ev e Steph

en 's story of a s udden dow n tur n i n b us i n es s. The c our

t ad dr es se d th

e doub l e c oun

ti n g i ss ue , c al l i n g i t a misguided ar gument on S t ephe n's pa rt beca use t he I RA inco me was less o f an infl uenc e o n t he cour t's decisi

on than the percep tion that Step hen' s test im ony was not credible. The co urt also1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

10

n oted th at S teph en

appa re n tl y sp en t m on ey f or h i s ow n b en ef i t ra th er th an meeti n g h i s c ourtord er ed su pp ort ob l i ga

ti on s to h i s ch i l dr en . We c on cl ud e th e tr i al cou rt di d n ot ab us e i ts dis cretion i

n den yi ng Stephen's m

ot ion f or modif ic ation of ch

il d support, nor were its f

in din gs agai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. W e tu rn to the i ss ueof sa nc ti ons . Du ri ng the pe nd en cy of Stephe n' s m oti on f or mo dific at io n o f ch ild s up po r t , t he pa r t ies dis pu t ed se ve r al p r o ce du r al is su es , inc lud ing so me related to di scovery . It is f rom th ese di sputes that Steph

en 's motion s f

or san cti ons a rose. In Apri l 2006, F arley

subm itted in terro gator ie s and requests for documents. Stephen
m oved to strik e the i nterroga torie s an d i m pose s an cti ons, a l l egi ng F arley vi ola ted Supre me Court Ru l e 2 13 (b ) (2 10 Il

l . 2d R. 21 3(b )) (th e a

ttorn ey di re cti n g i n ter rog ator i es m us t re str i ct th em to perti n en t su b j ec t m atte r a n d a v oi d u n n ec es sa ry de tai l an d e x pen se to th e a n sw eri n g p ar ty ). A t a st at us he ar ing, S t ephe n sug ges t ed t hat t he pa rt ies have a co nfere nce w ith t he co ur t t o r eso lve their discovery

disagreem

ents. Farley decl

in ed, st ating he pl

anned to fil

e withi n 10 days a re spo nse t o S t ephe n's mot ion t o s t rike as w ell as a mo t ion o n Kare n's beha lf to co mpel St ephe n's com pl i ance wi th discovery . Stephen

ask ed f or 21 day s to resp ond to Fa

rl ey 's f i l i ngs , but the court allo we d o nly 1 0 d ays . T he t r ial c o ur t we nt o n t o de ny S t ep he n's mo t io n fo rsa nc t io ns b ut it did no t co mpe l his c o mplia nc e w it h d isc o ve ry. I nst ea d, t he co ur t o r de r ed St ep he n t o pr o du ce o nly f i na nc i al docum en ts f or the pe ri od of Jan

uary 1, 2006 , to June

30, 200 6. On Decem

ber 12, 2006, Stephen f

il ed another motion f

or sanctions. Stephen

alle ged Ka r en an d F ar ley: ( 1) filed impr o pe rint er r o ga t o r ies as pr o ve n by t he fac t t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t did not o rder Stephen to answer them , instead aski ng f or six m onths of f in anci al documen ts; (2)1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

11

fal sel y a ll eged that Stephen had f

ai le d to pay

certain e xpen ses i ncurred by

Susan f or which he was
n ot re sp on si

b l e u n der the d

i ss ol uti on to h aras s h

i m , i n cr ea se l i ti ga ti on costs a n d d ec ei v e th e c our t; (3 ) r efuse d t o c oo per at e wit h St ephe n's at t empt s t o e xped ite t he litigat ion and har asse d him by
r eq uir ing him t o giv e a de po sit io n; a nd ( 4) misr ep r es en t ed t o t he co ur t t he law o n d o ub le coun tin g. The court den

i ed th e m otion and Steph

en appe al s. We revi ew a r

uli ng on a m otion f or san cti ons u nde r the a bus e of di scre tion stan dard. In re Marriage of Baum gartner , 38 4 I ll. A pp . 3d 39 , 64 , 89 0 N . E . 2d 12 56 ( 20 08 ) . T he t r ial c o ur t is in the best position to deci de how procedural rules sh ould be applie d and so i

ts decis ions

are entitled to def eren ce. In re Marri age of Baum gartner , 3 84 I ll. App. 3d a t 64. We co nsider whet her t he de ci si on was"i nf orm ed , b as ed on v al i d re as ons , an

d f ol l owe d l ogi cal l y f rom the ci rcu m sta nc esof the case." Burrows v. Pick , 306 Il l . Ap p. 3d 10 48, 105 1, 715 N .E.2d 792(1999 ). Step hen f irst argues t hat Farley

violated Sup reme Court Rule 213(b) (210 Ill. 2d R. 213(b)) by

subm ittin g in terro gator ie s i

ntended to harass h

im and l engthen the li tigation. He argues that the trial

court gave a "c le ar in

dic ation" that i

t found Farl

ey's i nterrogat ories i

mproper when it f ai le d to order St ephen

to answer them

and di rected him

to provide onl

y f in anci al in form ation f rom Jan uary to June 2006. Rul

e 213(b) requi

res the atto rney

servi ng i nterrogat ories t o av o id u nne ce ss ar y bu r de ns o rex pe nse s o n t he an sw er ing pa r t y. 2 10 I ll. 2 d R . 21 3( b) . Ru le 21 3( c) qu an t ifies t he r eq uir eme nt : " a p ar t y sha ll no t se r ve mo r e t ha n 3 0 in t er r o ga t o r ies . " 2 10 I ll. 2d R. 213(c). Here, t he record shows that Farl ey's f irst set of i

nterrogat ories contai

ned 13 qu es t io ns a nd a s ec o nd se t co nt ain ed 4 q ue st io ns. T his is we ll wit hin t he 30
- int er r o ga t o ry limit sta ted i n th e ru l e. The tri al cou rt di d n ot ab us e i ts d i screti on i n d en y i ng Stephe n' s r eq ue st f or1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

12

san cti ons u nde r Rul e 213 (b) (2 10 Il

l . 2d R. 2 13(b )). Stephen n ext argues that Farl ey

should have been

sanctioned for si

gni ng pleadi ngs that con tai ne d f alse sta tem en ts a bou t the prov i si ons i n th e di ss ol ution or de r on rei m bu rs em en ts f or Susan' s extracurricul

ar activi ties. He cl

ai ms the dis soluti on order specif ic al ly li mi ted reim bursem ents to at hletic acti

vi ties, m usi c l essons an

d dramatics classes, y

et Farley requested reim bursemen t for da nces, pizza parties and Mardi Gras activiti es. The reco rd shows t hi s request wa s w it hd r aw n by F ar ley. De sp it e t his w it hd r aw al, St ep he n ma int ain s F ar ley vio lat ed Ru le 8.4 (a) (4) of

the Rul esof Prof es si ona l Con duc t (13 4 Il l . 2d R. 8 .4( a)(4)) (an

attorn ey sh al l not "en gage i n c onduc t in vol vi ng d i shonesty, f

raud, d ece i t or misreprese

ntation") a

nd S uprem

e Court Rul e 137 (155 Ill . 2d R. 137) (t he si gnature of the atto rney

in a l awsui t cert if ie s that the pleadi

ngs ar e " we l l gr oun de d i n f ac t" a n d " n ot i n ter pos ed f or a n y i m pr ope r p ur pos e, such

as to h aras s or

to caus e un ne ces sary del ay or nee dl ess

i ncreas e i n the cost of

l i tig ati on"). It appears from the record that Farley reali zed a m is take had been

ma de when he wi thdrew t he pa ra gr aphs at issue. While i t is tr ue t hat sanc t ions a re pr op er wher e a mist ake co uld have be en corrected

but was n

ot and the other p arty

i ncurs c osts as

a res ul t ( People v . Stefanski, 377 I ll. A pp . 3d 54 8, 55 2- 53 , 87 9 N . E . 2d 10 19 ( 20 07 ) ) , t he mist ak e h er e w as co rr ec t ed in a t imely fash ion and there is

no eviden

ce that Step hen i

ncurred co sts. St ephe n next ar gue s t hat sanc t ions s hou ld have be en impos ed u nder Rules 3. 2 and 3.3(a)(11) o f the R

ule s of Profess iona

l C onduct (134 Ill . 2d Rs. 3.2, 3.3(a) (11)) because K aren and Fa rl ey ref use d Steph

en 's reque st to me et wi

th the tria l j udge to resol ve thei r di scovery dif f ere nc es . Ste phen cl ai m s th ei r re f us al wa s a mea ns of f orci ng hi m to res pon d to a "ru l e to s how1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

13

cause" an d appear for an un

necess ary deposi

tion. Rule 3.2 provides: " A l awy er shal l m ake reasonable ef

forts t o expedite li

tigation consistent with the interests o f the cl ien t. " 134 Ill . 2d R. 3.2 . Ru l e 3 .3( a)( 11)prov

i de s th at a l aw yer s ha ll not " ref us e to a cc ed e to re as ona

bl e re que sts of o pp o sing co un se l t ha t do no t pr eju dic e t he r igh t s o f t he clie nt . " 1 34 I ll. 2 d R . 3. 3( a) ( 11 ) . A Ru le 3.2 vi olation m

ust be proven b

y c le ar and conv

in ci ng ev ide nce ( In reSm i th , 168 Ill . 2d 269, 282- 83, 659 N. E. 2d 8 96 ( 199 5) ), as must a Ru le 3. 3 vio latio n ( I n r e I ng er so ll , 186 Ill . 2d 163, 177, 710 N .E.2d 390

(1999 )). Here, Farl ey

declin ed to part ic ipa

te in a n i mprom ptu conference

on dis covery proposed by Stephe n b ut a gre ed to f i l e p l eadi ng s on the i ss ue s wi thi n 1 0 da y s. S tep he

n th en as ke d f or twi ce a s m

uch tim e, 21 d ays, to resp ond to the p l eadi ngs Far l ey would f i l e. In stead , the tri

al court impose d o n St ephe n t he sa me 10- day de adline given t o F ar ley. Far ley's pre fere nce fo r a ddr essing the dis covery i

ssues i n wri tt en pl eadi ngs rather than

a hastily -assem bled confe

rence i s not clear and con vi nc i ng e vi den ce that Fa rl ey vi ola ted Rul es 3 .2 an d 3.3. In f act, i t appea rs f rom th e rec ord that b oth si

descontri bute d to delays i

n di scovery and other procedur

al matters. Th

e tri al court did not err in refusi

ng to sanction Farl ey f

or d elay s. Stephen n ext argues his m

ot ion f or sanctions s

hould h ave b een gran

ted because F arley vi olated Rul e 3.3(a)(3) o f the R ule s of Profess iona

l C onduct (134 Ill . 2d R. 3.3(a)(3) ) by fi li ng an unso licited memo ra ndum and misrepr ese nt ing t he ca se law on d ou ble co unt ing o n t he eve of t he hear ing o n St ephe n's mot ion fo r mo dificat ion. Rule 3 .3 (a )( 3) re quir es a lawyer t o " disclo se t o t he tri b un al l eg al au th ori ty i n th e c on trol l i n g j uri sd i cti on kn own to th e l aw yer to b e d i re ctl y ad v er se to the p osi tion of the cl i en t and not di scl osed b y opposi ng c ouns el ." 132Ill . 2d R. 3 .3(a)(3 ).1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

14

The record shows that the trial judge had n ot read the me

morandum

or exhi bi ts at issue, b ut ev en i f h e h ad , th i s a rgum en t i s w ai v ed . A t th e h ea ri n g on th e m oti on to m odi f y ch i l d suppor t, St ephe n objec t ed t o t he exhibits at t ache d t o t he memor andu m, but he did no t challenge t he content of the mem

orandum or i

ts representation of cas e l aw. Nor did Stephen raise these issues when the tri al cou rt h el d a he ari ng on h i s p eti ti on f or s an cti ons af ter i ts ru l i ng on S tep he

n' s m oti on to rec ons i de r th e d en

i al of hi s p eti ti on f or m odif i ca ti on on De cem be r 19 , 20 06. Th e doctri

ne of wai ver appl i es to argu

men ts rai sed f or the f i rst ti me on a ppea l . Daniels v. Ind ust rial Co mm'n, 201 Il l . 2d 160 , 182, 77 5 N.E.2d 936 (2 002). We turn to t he i ssue of attorney f ees. Farley

fi le d a petition on K

aren's beh al f f or at to rney fees under section 508(b) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/508(b) (West 2006)). Bo th parties presen ted oral argu men ts o n De cem b er 19 , 20 06 , a f

ter th e c our t' s r ul i n gson Ste ph en ' s m oti on s to recon sider the den

i al of h i s petiti on f or modi f i cation an d f or san cti ons. S teph en

ask ed f or a sep arate e vi den tia ry he ari ng w here F arley

would be requi red to testi f

y ab out hi s f

ees and servi ces . The tria l court den

i ed th e requ

est an d ordere d Steph

en to pay $3,000 of K aren 's attorney f ees . T he jud ge sa id h e h ad co nsid er ed t he pa r t ies ' a r gu men t s a nd t he fac t o r s u se d b y co ur t s in ass ess i ng a peti tion f or attorney

f ees . See, f

or exa m pl e, Ri ch ard son v. Ha ddon

, 375 Ill . App. 3d 312 , 3 14- 15, 873 N. E. 2d 5 70 ( 200 7) (t he fact or s include "t he nat ur e o f the cas e, t he ca se's novel ty an d dif fi cul ty level , the skill

and sta n di n g of th e a ttorn ey , the deg re e of re sp on si b i l i ty re quir ed, t he us ual and cus t omar y charg es fo r similar wo rk , a nd t he co nnect ion bet wee n t he l i tig ati on an

d the f ees charged "). The judg e sa id he also had r eviewe d Far ley's hou rly bil ling sh eets a n d c ost s. Ste

ph en argu es on appe al th at th e c our t er re d i n re f us i n g to h ol d a se pa ra te1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

15

he ari ng. "[W]he re the all owance of attorney' s f

ees i s contested and a hea rin g is requested, the tr ia

l cour t should conduct a hearin g on t he question." Sc ott v . Sc ott , 72 Ill . App. 3d 117, 127, 389 N. E . 2d 12 71 ( 19 79 ) . I t ap pe ar s fr o m t he t r an sc r ipt s t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t r eg ar de d p r o ce ed ing s he ld on De cem b er 19 , 20 06 , a s a

h ea ri n g on attor n ey f ee s. Bu t b ec au se Ste ph en re qu ested

a s ep arate hear ing, he is ent itled t o r ece ive one . We re ver se t he t rial co ur t 's aw ar d o f at t or ney fees a nd rem and f or a he ari ng on thi s i ssue. Bec aus e St ephe n's claims of e xempt ions t o g ar nishment may re main at iss ue a fte r t he hearin g, we will address t hem

here. After the t rial

cour t awar ded Karen $3,000 in atto rney f ees, Far l ey serv ed a n onwa ge ga rnish men t sum mons on Fi rst Mi dwest Ban

k (Fi rst Mi dwest), whe

re Step hen h ad several accounts. The dat e of service was J anuary 2, 2007. The next day, First Mi dwest advi sed Stephen that i t was holdi

ng $200 f rom one account and $2,800 f rom another acc ount to sati sf

y the n onwa ge ga rnish men t. Stephen f il ed a notice to clai

m e xem ptions f rom garnishm

ent. He cla

im ed $2,800 was exem pt from garnishm

ent under sect ion 12-704 of the Co de of Civ il Pro cedure (Co de) (735 ILCS 5/1 2-7 04 (W es t 200 6)) (b en ef i ts a nd ref un dspa yab l e b y reti rem en t f un dsare exem pt f rom gar nishment) or sec t ion 1 2- 100 6 o f the Co de ( 735 ILC S 5 /1 2- 100 6) (a debt or 's inte re st in a retirem ent pla n i s exem pted from sei

zure for satis faction of debts). In the al ternative, h

e argued t hat t he ent ire $ 3, 000 was exempt unde r se ct ion 1 2- 100 1( b) o f the Co de ( 735 ILC S 5 /1 2- 100 1( b) ( We st 20 06 ) ) ( pe r so na l pr o pe r t y o wn ed by t he de bt o r , inc lud ing t he de bt o r 's e qu it y int er es t "in an y other prope

rty" i s ex em pt fr om judgm

en t).1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

16

Af ter a hearin

g, the trial

court deni

ed the exem

ptions, ci ting Aut o O wner s Ins ur ance v. Berk sh i re , 22 5 Il l . A pp. 3d 6 95, 588 N.E .2d

123 0 (1 992 ) (a

l um p-s um di stri bu ti on f rom a p ensi on pla n i s not exem

pt from garni

shm ent unl ess the reci

pie nt roll ed over the fun

ds i nto another qual i f i ed pl an ). It i s un di sputed that Steph

en di d not do so. Step

hen f i l ed a m otion to recons i der, arg ui ng tha t the cou rt' s orde r wa s u

nc l ea r an d that $ 9,0 00 i

n h i s b us i ne ss ba nk ac cou nts coul d n ot be used to satisf

y the garni shm ent becaus e the fun

ds were deposi

ted after the date of servi

ce, Jan uary 2, 2007 . Th e tri al cou rt de ni ed Stephe n' s m oti on to rec ons i de r i

n a wri tten mem oran dum opi ni on and o rd er , c onc luding t hat First Midwe st pr op er ly held $3, 000 at t he t ime of t he ga rnishment sum m ons a nd th e l i en that attach

ed at that tim

e rem ai ne d i n e f f ect. Stephe n a rgueson a

ppe al tha t he wa s enti tl ed to exem ptions un de r: ( 1) s ec ti on 1 2-7 04 of the Code (7 35 I LC S 5/ 12- 704 (Wes t 200 6)) , ex

em pti ng reti rem en t be ne f i ts a nd ref un dsf rom garn i sh men t; an d (2) s ection 12- 1001(

b) of the C ode (735 ILCS 5/12-1 001(b) (We st 2006 )), ex em pti ng p erson al property i nc l udi ng th e deb tor's e qui ty i ntere st up to $4,00 0. W

hen, a s here, a gar nishment issu e is co nt est ed a nd t her e wa s a t rial o n t he issue , a re viewing co ur t must det er mine wh ethe r the j udgm

en t was a gai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Buckner v . Causey, 311 Il l . Ap p. 3d 13 9, 142- 43, 724

N.E.2d 9 5 (199 9). Sec ti on 1 2-7 04 of

the Code p rovi de s: "B en

ef i ts a nd ref un dspa yab l e b y pe ns i on or retirement funds *** are exem pt and are no t subject to garnish men t. " 735 ILCS 5/1 2-704 ( West 200 6). W

he n r eti rem en t f un dsare depos i ted i n a ch ec ki ng ac cou nt, the y are exem pt f rom garn i sh men t onl y i f they rem ai n trac eab l e as

reti rem en t ben ef i ts. Berk sh

i re , 225 Ill . App. 3d at1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

17

701. Here, the evi dence sh owed the distri

butions from Stephen' s IRA acc ounts had been comm in gle d with the proceeds f

rom Karen

's b uy-out of hi s i

nterest in the fam il y h ome an d that Stephen was un

abl e to t race and di

ff erentiate the retirem

ent fun ds. The trial

court 's den

ia l of an ex em pti on to garn

i sh men t unde r section 12-70 4 of

the C ode (735 ILCS 5/12-7 04 (W est 200 6)) was not again

st the man

if est weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. Ste ph en argu es th at Berk sh

i re is in applic abl e becaus e the court t here speci fi cally stated t hat nonw age gar nishment, t he issue her e, was not at issue t her e: " The nonw age gar nishment ac t io n ha s it s o wn ex emp t io n fo rpe nsio n p lan s a nd do es no t ap ply here." Berk sh

i re , 225 Ill . App. 3d at 69 7-98. Th

e con text of thi s statemen

t was th i s court' s obs ervati on tha

t the tri al court misspo ke: "We must also not e t hat while the t rial co ur t re ferr ed t o a nonw age gar nishment, t he pro cedure employ

ed by plai ntif f was a [di ff

erent] p roced ure." Berk sh i re , 225 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 697. Con tex tual de tai l s a si de , i t i s tr ue th at Berk sh

i re construed section 12-1006 of the Code (735 IL CS 5/1 2-1 006

(Wes t 200 6)) (ex

em pti ng reti rem en t plan s f rom se izu re f or th e s ati sf

ac ti on of debts), wh

i l e this ca se i

nv olv es s ection 12- 704 of

the C ode (735 ILCS 5/12-7 04 (W est 200 6)) (e xempt ing benefit s and re funds p ayable by pensio n or re t irement funds fr om g ar nishment) . At the outset of i

ts anal ys is , the Berk sh

i re court general

iz ed i ts holdi ng be yond s ection 12-1006 wh en i t n oted : " In

th e l ast de cade , the l

eg i sl atu reh as gr ea tl y i n cr ea se d th

e p rote cti on af f ord ed [to re t irement funds] by the e xempt ion statutes ." (Em phasi s ad ded). Berk sh

i re , 225 Ill . App. 3d at 697. We be li

eve the Berk sh

i re hol di ng , th at u ntr ac ea bl e re ti rem en t f un dsare not e xe m pt f rom ga rn i sh men t, ap pl i eseq ual l y to se cti on 1 2-7 04. Th e tri

al cou rt di d n ot err i n i ts re l i an ceon Berk sh i re .1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

18

Stephen n ext argues that the trial

court should have exem

pted the ful

l $3,000 garn

is hed as pers onal property und er se cti on 12- 1001(

b) of the C ode (735 ILCS 5/12-1 001(b) (We st 2006 )). Th i s s ec ti on exem pts f rom ga rn i sh men t pers on al pr ope rty , i n cl udi n g " [t]h e deb tor' s e qui ty in terest , not to exceed $4,000 in val ue, in any ot her prop erty." 735 I LCS 5/12-10 01(b) (West 200 6). Stephe

n m ai nta i ns tha t f un dsdepos i ted i n h i s b us i ne ss ac cou nts af ter th e d ateof servi ceof the garni shm

ent sum mons should not have b een counted by the court in

enf orcing the $3,000 j udgm en t unde r Zucker v. Un

ited States Computer Corp. , 85 Ill . App. 3d 759, 766, 408 N.E. 2d 41 ( 198 0) (inde bt edne ss is t o be measu re d as of t he da t e o f service of t he ga rnishment summons and so if a bank has n

ot had reasonable tim

e to learn of a deposit on the dat e of the summ ons, there can be no i nde bted ne ss f or garn i sh men t purpose s). Step hen' s arguments are at o dds with the facts of the case. On January 2, 2007, First Midwe st re ceived t he ga rnishment summons , c aus ing it t o ho ld $3 ,0 00 in t wo of S t ephe n's per so nal acc ou nt s. U nder sec t ion 1 2- 707 of t he Co de ( 735 ILC S 5 /1 2- 707 (a )) , a judg ment o r t he balance due on a judg ment be co mes a lien o n t he pr op er t y held by the g ar nishee at t he t ime of t he ser vice o f the gar nishment s ummons a nd r emains a lien o n t he pr op er t y pending a gar nishment pr oce ed i n g. " It i s readi

l y appa re n t th at th i s l i en atta ch es at th e ti me th e g ar n i sh ee i s s er v ed wi th pro cess." Ma

pleh urst Fa rms, I nc . v . Grea

ter R ockf ord Ene rgy & T ec hn ol ogy Co. , 167 Ill . App. 3d 767 , 769, 52 1 N.E.2d

1270 ( 1988) . Her e, a lien at t ache d t o S t ephe n's First Midwe st per so nal acc ou nt s whe n t he ga rnishment sum mons was serve d on January

2, 2007. St ephen

's b usi ness accounts, in

cl udin g deposits af

ter th e date of se rvi ce , w er e n

ot s ub j ec t to th e l

i en . Ste ph en ' s c l ai m of an exem pti on to ga rn i sh men ts1-07-0 135 & 1-07-2 142, Co ns.

19

und er se cti on 12- 1001 i

s unsupp orted under the f acts of thi s ca se. The t rial co ur t det er mined t hat St ephe n's re liance o n Zucker wasm i spl ace d an d we a gree. In Zucker , t he fact s differe d in t hat t he bank t her e held no funds o f the judg ment d ebt or on t he date th e garn

i sh men t sum mons was s erv ed. Zucker , 85 Ill . App. 3d at 761. Here, it is un dis puted t hat First Midwe st Bank held $3 ,0 00 fr om S t ephe n's pe rso nal acc ou nt s whe n t he ga rnishment summons was ser ved a nd t hat a lien at t ache d at t hat t ime. The t rial co ur t did no t er r in de nying Ste ph en ' s m oti on to re con si der the den

i al of h i s c l ai med exem pti on s to ga rn i sh men t. I n su mmar y, w e c o nc lud e: ( 1) t he r e is no leg al b ar t o co un t ing St ep he n's I RA w it hd r aw als as i n com e des pi te th ei r i n cl us i on i n th e p rop er

ty settl em en t; (2 ) the tr

i al cou rt di d n ot ab us e i ts dis cr et io n in d en ying St ep he n's pe t it io n fo rmo dific at io n o f ch ild s up po r t ; ( 3) t he t r ial c o ur t did not abus e its discr et ion in denying S t ephe n's mot ion fo r mo net ar y sanct ions a gainst Far ley; (4) t he t rial co ur t sho uld no t have d enied S t ephe n's re que st for a se par at e hea ring o n at t or ney fees a nd we rema nd f or such a heari

ng; a nd (5) Stephen' s clai

ms of exem ptions to garnis

hm ent are wi thout
meri t. The j udgm en t of the ci rcui t court is af f i rmed i n pa rt, reve rsed i n pa rt and rem anded f or a hearin g on at to rney f

ees. Af fi rmed i n part and revers ed i

n part; cause rem

anded. O' MA LL EY, P.J., a

nd McBR IDE, J., conc

ur.