The trial court's 1996 maintenance review decision clearly reflects that petitioner was under an affirmative obligation to seek appropriate employment to become self-sufficient. Yet, the record also reflects that, in the four years since she graduated from college, petitioner had done little toward finding gainful employment or advancing her efforts at becoming self-sufficient. The trial court's judgment serves as a disincentive to petitioner to achieve financial independence, prolongs petitioner's dependence and respondent's litigation expenses, and discourages judicial economy. We find that petitioner has achieved the statutory goal of rehabilitative maintenance and conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to grant respondent's motion to terminate maintenance. We, therefore, reverse the trial court's award of maintenance and remand this cause to the trial court with directions to enter an order terminating maintenance.
Attorney fees are generally the responsibility of the party who incurred the fees.
A court may consider a party's prospective as well as her or his current income in awarding attorney fees. 244 Ill. App. The allowance of attorney fees in a dissolution case and the proportion to be paid by each party are within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion or unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 181 Ill. 2d at 561. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering respondent to pay petitioner's attorney fees.