Court Opinion

ID: 9819495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:26:29.346001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:05.514488
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: I respectfully dissent and would affirm the decision of the trial court. Prior to the 1997 amendments, section 508 specifically allowed the court to order any party to pay costs and attorney fees “necessarily incurred” or “expected to be incurred by any party, which award shall be made in connection with *** (3) [t]he defense of an appeal of any order or judgment under this Act.” 750 ILCS 5/508(a)(3) (West 1996). It has been held that former section 508 only allowed fee awards in the defense of appeals. In re Marriage of Wentink, 132 Ill. App. 3d 71, 81, 476 N.E.2d 1109, 1116 (1984). A later case disagreed with Wentink. Although section 508(a)(3) specifically referred to the defense of an appeal, the broad language of section 508(a)(1) (“ ‘[t]he “maintenance or defense of any proceeding” under th[is] Act’ ” (In re Marriage of Pick, 167 Ill. App. 3d 294, 304, 521 N.E.2d 121, 128 (1988), quoting Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 40, par. 508, at 120 (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1987))) allowed recovery for the prosecution of a successful appeal. Pick, 167 Ill. App. 3d at 305, 521 N.E.2d at 128 (“outcome determinative” test is predicated on the absence of any benefit to the party prosecuting the appeal; the expenses of an unsuccessful appeal are not “necessarily incurred”); see also 2 Gitlin on Divorce §§ 19 — 3(a), 19 — 8 (3d ed. 2000). The 1997 amendments brought about a complete overhaul of the fee provisions of the Act. D. Hopkins, “Leveling the Playing Field” in Divorce: Questions and Answers About the New Law, 85 Ill. B.J. 410 (1997) (hereinafter Hopkins). The 1997 amendments deleted the prospective-fee language in section 508 and replaced it with new language in section 501(c — 1) dealing with interim fees. Pub. Act 89— 712, § 5, eff. June 1, 1997 (1996 Ill. Laws 4055-56); Hopkins, 85 Ill. B.J. at 411-12. The 1997 amendments deal with interim attorney fees awarded from the opposing party, contribution to attorney fees from the opposing party at the conclusion of the case, and attorney fees awarded to counsel from a former client. Pub. Act 89 — 712, § 5, eff. June 1, 1997 (1996 Ill. Laws -4055-56) (750 ILCS 5/508 (West 1998)). The goals of the 1997 amendments were “to achieve substantial parity in parties’ access to funds for litigation costs” (Pub. Act 89 — 712, § 5, eff. June 1, 1997 (1996 Ill. Laws 4054) (750 ILCS 5/102(5) (West 1998))) and to address conflict-of-interest concerns. Hopkins, 85 Ill. B.J. at 413. The 1997 amendments retained former section 508’s listing of possible proceedings in which attorney fees might be awarded. 750 ILCS 5/508(a)(l) through (a)(5) (West 1996). The amendments added a new subparagraph (3.1), apparently to resolve the dispute between Wentink and Pick, adopting the position taken in Pick. Awards may be made in connection with “(3.1) The prosecution of any claim on appeal (if the prosecuting party has substantially prevailed).” Pub. Act 89 — 712, § 5, eff. June 1, 1997 (1996 Ill. Laws 4060) (750 ILCS 5/508(a)(3.1) (West 1998)). It is now possible to recover attorney fees for the prosecution of an appeal, but only if the party prosecuting the appeal has been successful. The phrase “substantially prevailed” appears to mean that it is not sufficient that the party has technically prevailed. A nominal victory is not sufficient. There must be a victory in substance, a real victory. The primary definition of “substantial” is “la: consisting of or relating to substance b: not imaginary or illusory: REAL, TRUE c: IMPORTANT, ESSENTIAL.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1170 (10th ed. 2000); cf. In re D.F., 321 Ill. App. 3d 211, 219-20, 748 N.E.2d 271, 279 (2001) (employing a secondary definition), appeal pending, No. 91556. The majority’s requirement that there be an overwhelming victory before attorney fees can be awarded runs counter to the spirit of the 1997 amendments, which sought to prevent the situation where an economically disadvantaged spouse is forced to “cave in” to a truly unfair settlement. If we accept the majority’s position, Catherine could only appeal a judgment which was grossly out of line. There would be no economic way for Catherine to appeal where the dollar value of the error was less than the cost of appeal. Catherine should have accepted the trial court’s award of child support below the guidelines amount, even though “[t]here seems to be no conceivable reason why the legislature should want to deny compensation for services in reversing an erroneous and therefore unjust decree.” Bramson v. Bramson, 17 Ill. App. 2d 87, 100, 149 N.E.2d 399, 405 (1958). The majority’s new rule, that “one has to obtain at least 50% of the relief she seeks” (327 Ill. App. 3d at 852) before attorney fees may be awarded, is without support in the statute or the case law. If a party has a legitimate basis for appeal we should not attempt to discourage that party from raising other issues as well, even though the party thereby risks obtaining less than 50% of the relief sought. The appellate court should attempt to provide guidance on troublesome issues, not penalize parties for raising issues other than sure winners. Finally, the trial court determined that Catherine was entitled to attorney fees on appeal, that Catherine had “substantially prevailed” in the appellate court. The trial court’s determination is entitled to deference and should not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Lustig v. Horn, 315 Ill. App. 3d 319, 328, 732 N.E.2d 613, 621 (2000) (determination that work performed was “necessary”); In re Estate of Kirk, 292 Ill. App. 3d 914, 923, 686 N.E.2d 1246, 1253 (1997) (deference given to trial court in awarding attorney fees). The argument could be made that this court is as well-qualified as the trial court to determine whether a party has “substantially prevailed” on appeal. However, we have recently ruled that we have no jurisdiction over attorney fees on appeal. In re Marriage of Baylor, 324 Ill. App. 3d 213, 216, 753 N.E.2d 1264, 1266 (2001).