2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U No. 2-22-0154 Order filed November 13, 2023
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
In re MARRIAGE OF GENUEL ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ALMODOVAR, JR., ) of Lake County. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 19-D-975 ) JANET ALMODOVAR, ) Honorable ) Charles W. Smith, Respondent-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Schostok and Kennedy concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital estate equally; the trial court’s reservation of maintenance was not an abuse of discretion; where the trial court erroneously stated that the wife had not filed a petition for contribution for attorney fees, it abused its discretion by denying the wife’s petition. Trial court is affirmed, in part and vacated, in part, and the cause is remanded.
¶2 On March 5, 2021, after a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment dissolving the
marriage between petitioner, Genuel Almodovar, Jr. (Mark), and respondent, Janet Almodovar.
Janet appeals, arguing that the trial court erred when it (1) failed to allocate her a greater share of
the marital estate, (2) failed to award her indefinite maintenance, and (3) denied her petition for 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
contribution for attorney fees. For the following reasons, we affirm, in part, vacate in part, and
remand for further proceedings.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Mark and Janet married in 1981. Two children, each of whom are now emancipated, were
born to the couple. In June 2019, Mark petitioned to dissolve the marriage. The matter proceeded
to a three-day trial on September 29, 30, and October 16, 2020. Prior to the trial, the parties filed
numerous motions mostly related to which party was going to have control of the marital asset,
M&J Machinery (M&J). The parties founded M&J in 2005 and each owned 50% of the business.
M&J is a manufacturer of precision machine components and parts that has employed as many as
18 people, including the parties’ son, Eric. Many of the employees are highly skilled machinists.
¶5 A. Pre-Trial Proceedings
¶6 On June 17, 2019, the day before Mark filed his petition for dissolution of marriage, he
filed a verified petition for an order of protection against Janet, wherein he averred that Janet
“attacked [him], hit [him] repeatedly, scratched [him], which caused bruises and scratches to [his]
face and [his] body [and that Janet] has many guns which she keeps in the house.” Mark also stated
that he called the police, and that Janet was arrested for domestic battery.
¶7 On July 8, 2019, the trial court entered an agreed order that provided, inter alia, that Mark
shall have exclusive possession of the marital residence in Antioch.
¶8 On October 4, 2019, Janet filed an “Emergency Verified Petition for Temporary Injunctive
Relief and the appointment of a Receiver” (petition for injunctive relief). Janet alleged that for the
last two years, Mark had only occasionally shown up to work and that when he did, he antagonized
skilled and vital employees. Six valuable employees quit due to Mark’s behavior, which caused
M&J to lose business and revenue. Mark was also antagonistic towards Janet who was M&J’s
-2- 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
corporate secretary, and Eric, who ran the company in Mark’s absence. Mark also had surveillance
cameras installed on M&J’s premises to remotely monitor everyone at the company. Janet’s
petition filed an order seeking to restrain Mark from acting as an officer and/or director of M&J,
managing or interfering in the management of M&J, retaining any M&J property, and being on
M&J property. Janet also sought an order to appoint Eric as the receiver of M&J.
¶9 On October 15, 2019, the trial court entered an agreed order that “[t]he status quo ante with
the respect to the operation of [M&J] shall be maintained until further court order.”
¶ 10 On October 28, 2019, Janet filed an emergency petition for adjudication of indirect civil
contempt, that recounted the allegations of her petition for injunctive relief and alleged that Mark
violated the court’s October 15 order when he transferred $100,000 from M&J’s checking account
into his personal account.
¶ 11 On October 29, 2019, the trial court entered an order that allowed Janet to run M&J and
restricted Mark from accessing the building with the exception of once per day and in case of an
emergency.
¶ 12 On January 31, 2020, Janet filed a “Supplement to [her]: Emergency Verified Petition for
Adjudication of Indirect Civil Contempt,” wherein she alleged, further instances of Mark’s
misconduct regarding M&J including, his threats to Janet and Eric as they attempted to hire new
employees, pay Christmas bonuses, and pay vendors with the company credit card. Janet also
alleged that Mark stopped paying her salary since December 2019 and “absconded with $250,000
of business funds,” which left M&J without adequate working capital; in early December 2019,
Janet and Eric terminated Mark’s brother, Jeff Almodovar because he routinely showed up to work
with a gun.
-3- 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
¶ 13 On March 6, 2020, Janet filed a motion to vacate the agreed order dated July 8, 2019, and
asked the court to refer the matter to the Lake County State’s attorney for investigation of perjury
and for filing a false police report. Janet alleged that during Mark’s February 10, 2020, deposition,
he repeatedly impeached himself and contradicted the allegations that he made to the Antioch
police that caused her to be arrested for battery and to be incarcerated overnight. Then, on June
18, 2019, Mark obtained an emergency order of protection based on the false battery charges.
Using the order of protection, Mark manipulated Janet to trade away possession of the marital
home to ensure her freedom and continued employment with M&J. Thereafter, Mark moved his
“paramour” into the marital home.
¶ 14 On March 10, 2020, the court heard testimony regarding Janet’s petition for injunctive
relief. Janet’s counsel asked Mark if he stated under oath in his domestic violence petition, “my
wife has many guns which she keeps in the house.” Mark agreed that he made that statement. He
also agreed that when he made that statement, there were no guns in the house other than the guns
that were in his vault. Mark did not agree that his statement that “his wife has many guns” was
false, because “[g]uns are marital property.”
¶ 15 On June 24, 2020, Janet filed a second supplement to her emergency petition for a
temporary restraining order and appointment of a receiver. Janet alleged inter alia, that Mark
obtained a Payroll Protection Program (PPP) loan in the amount of $217,775, and had used
$36,000 of the PPP loan to pay off the mortgage on the marital residence and $50,000 to pay his
attorney’s fees. Janet also alleged that Mark withdrew $100,000 from the parties’ health savings
account, transferred $100,000 from the parties’ joint account into his personal account, and
withdrew $150,000 from M&J’s business account.
¶ 16 B. Testimony
-4- 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
¶ 17 The parties stipulated that the testimony adduced from the pretrial hearings would be
adopted by the trial court as evidence in the trial. We recite only the testimony and other evidence
relevant to our resolution of the issues raised in this appeal.
¶ 18 Janet, 58 years old at the time of trial, completed school through the 10th grade in Puerto
Rico. She worked all her life. The parties married in 1981 and had two children, Eric, born in 1984,
and Erica, born in 1991. Early in the parties’ marriage, Janet worked at Fox Plastics, running
operations on machines and as an inspector. Later, she worked as a babysitter for various families,
which enabled her to care for the parties’ children. While raising the children, Janet also worked
as a manager at a White Castle restaurant to provide health insurance for the family, while helping
to facilitate the parties’ 2006 launch of M&J. In 2012, Janet began to work fulltime for M&J. She
worked approximately 50-60 hours a week as a “jack-of-all-trades,” with a wide range of
responsibilities including delivery assistance, inventory, business meetings with Eric, and ordering
supplies. Janet also helped inspect machines and manage employees.
¶ 19 Throughout the marriage, including while Janet worked full-time at M&J, she also
maintained and managed the parties’ home life. She raised the children, cooked, cleaned the home,
and did the family laundry. Janet had no help from anyone else, other than the occasional
babysitter.
¶ 20 Mark, 58 years old at the time of trial, testified that he completed one year of college. His
first job was at Titan Tool, where he worked for 25 years. During the parties’ marriage, Mark
worked 12-18 hours a day. Mark described himself as a “master machinist” who has an exceptional
knowledge of the machinist trade and industry. At M&J, Mark designed parts for customers,
worked with the engineering team, and worked on design software. Beginning in March 2018
Mark effectively withdrew from M&J. He did very little with the company, and only occasionally
-5- 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
showed up to work. Mark spent his time vacationing in his camper in Florida. He testified that his
age and medical issues prevented him from finding another job outside of M&J. Mark admitted
that he had not tried to find another job. Two years before the trial, a doctor told Mark that he
needed a hip and shoulder replacement. But this did not prevent Mark from working out or doing
his job at M&J.
¶ 21 In 2019 each party earned approximately $200,000 from M&J.
¶ 22 C. Posttrial Proceedings
¶ 23 In November 2020 Janet filed an emergency motion seeking to bar Mark from having
anything to do with M&J. This motion was filed after Mark showed up at M&J on October 28,
2020, accompanied by two Antioch police officers and attempted to take control of the business.
On November 10, 2020, after a hearing, the trial court granted Janet’s petition for injunctive relief,
and (1) enjoined Mark from, inter alia, entering M&J, harassing and/or intimidating Janet and
Eric, having contact with M&J’s employees, its customers, vendors, bankers, creditors, and/or
service providers; and (2) ordered Mark to be removed from any M&J corporate and/or
employment position, and to return all M&J property.
¶ 24 On January 15, 2021, the trial court entered an agreed order providing, in part, that petitions
for contribution of attorney’s fees shall be submitted by January 19, 2021. On January 19, 2021,
Janet filed a petition seeking contribution for attorney’s fees and costs from Mark. She alleged that
her attorneys attempted to preserve the parties’ business, M&J, despite Mark’s destructive
behavior. Janet alleged numerous detrimental actions taken by Mark. She argued that “Mark’s
attempts to sabotage M&J and subvert Janet and Eric’s efforts to operate M&J unnecessarily
protracted this litigation and substantially increased the costs of this litigation.” Janet argued (1)
that most of the fees she incurred “relate to her attempts to preserve the marital estate”; (2) her
-6- 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
financial stability will be undermined without contribution from Mark; and (3) Mark should pay
Janet’s attorney’s fees given the relevant statutory factors and the disparity between the parties’
incomes and assets. Janet noted that her counsel had been paid $128,272 and was owed $294,734.
¶ 25 Mark also filed a petition for contribution of attorney’s fees and costs. Mark alleged that
he owed approximately $200,000 in fees to his current counsel.
¶ 26 On February 19, 2021, the trial court announced its “Findings and Final Order Following
Trial.”
¶ 27 On March 1, 2021, Mark filed a motion to enter a judgment for dissolution of marriage
nunc pro tunc to February 19, 2021. The motion noted that the trial court’s prior order did not
award the parties a judgment of dissolution.
¶ 28 On March 5, 2021, the trial court entered a “Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage”
(judgment). The judgment largely incorporated the trial court’s February 19, 2021, findings and
final order. The judgment awarded each party 50% of M&J. Regarding M&J, the judgment states:
“[T]he court will afford each party the opportunity to purchase the other’s stock by
tendering the other $1,250.000 in cash within 7 days of the entry of this order. Should
neither party buy the other shares then the court will appoint a Receiver ***. The Receiver
is to sell the business *** at the highest possible price. After deducting the Receiver’s fees
and the costs of the sale each party will be entitled to one half (50%) of the net proceeds.”
¶ 29 The trial court divided the parties’ remaining assets equally between the parties and
expressly rejected their arguments that “they should receive a disproportionate share of the marital
assets.” These assets included a house in Antioch (valued at $267,000), retirement accounts, cars,
boats, and a vacation property (time share) in Mexico. The court “reserved maintenance until it is
determined if either party is going to purchase M&J.” Regarding attorney fees, the court
-7- 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
recognized that Mark sought contribution from Janet, but it mistakenly stated that “Janet has not
yet petitioned for attorney fees.” The court then found that “[b]oth sides needlessly increased the
cost of litigation [and by] the award of marital assets *** each party has the ability to pay their
own attorneys’ fees.”
¶ 30 On March 12, 2021, the parties informed the trial court that neither of them would buy out
the other’s share of M&J’s stock and that Eric was attempting to obtain the financing to buy the
parties out.
¶ 31 On March 17, 2021, the trial court appointed a receiver for M&J.
¶ 32 On March 24, 2021, Mark filed a motion to reconsider the court’s judgment of dissolution.
Mark argued that the trial court should not have allocated a 2017 Chrysler to Janet, because the
vehicle was an asset of M&J.
¶ 33 On April 5, 2021, Mark filed a second motion to reconsider the court’s judgment of
dissolution, regarding the parties’ time share and boat.
¶ 34 On February 2, 2022, the trial court entered an amended order that, inter alia, granted
Mark’s initial motion to reconsider.
¶ 35 On February 7, 2022, the receiver for M&J filed his report regarding the sale of M&J that
related, inter alia, that Eric’s company (IQM Solutions, LLC) purchased M&J for $2,495,000.
Mark received $1,247,500 in cash from the sale and Janet accepted a promissory note for the same
amount.
¶ 36 On April 28, 2022, the trial court entered an order that, inter alia, granted Mark’s second
motion to reconsider.
¶ 37 Janet filed her notice of appeal on May 10, 2022.
¶ 38 II. ANALYSIS
-8- 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
¶ 39 Before discussing the substance of this appeal, we address Janet’s arguments that Mark’s
introduction and supplemental statement of facts sections contain argument in violation of Illinois
Supreme Court Rules 341(h)(2) and (6). Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(2) and (6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2022). Janet
requests that we disregard the offending portions of Mark’s brief.
¶ 40 While an appellee is not required to submit an introductory paragraph or statement of facts
(see Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(i) (eff. Oct. 1, 2022)), if he elects to do so, he must also comply with Rule
341(h)(6). The Illinois Supreme Court Rules are not “mere suggestions” but instead “have the
force of law.” In re Denzel W., 237 Ill. 2d 285, 294 (2010). Where a party fails to substantially
conform to the pertinent supreme court rules, his brief may justifiably be stricken. Steven W. v.
Meeli W., 2021 IL App (2d) 200652, ¶ 37. However, because striking a party’s brief is a harsh
sanction, we will not do so unless the party’s noncompliance with the rules hinders our review. Id.
¶ 41 Here, we agree with Janet that Mark’s introduction section and supplemental statement of
facts improperly contain argument. With that said, the noncompliant portions of Marks’s brief do
not hinder our review, and therefore, we will not strike them. Instead, we simply disregard any
argument contained in these sections and admonish counsel to carefully follow the requirements
of the supreme court rules in future submissions.
¶ 42 Janet contends that the trial court erred because it (1) failed to allocate to her a greater share
of the marital estate, (2)failed to grant her indefinite maintenance, and (3) failed to grant her
petition for contribution to attorney fees.
¶ 43 Mark argues that we should not address these arguments because Janet invited any alleged
errors when she agreed to accept a promissory note to help their son buy M&J.
¶ 44 The rule of invited error or acquiescence is a form of procedural default also described as
estoppel. Gaffney v. Board of Trustees of Orland Fire Protection District, 2012 IL 110012, ¶ 33.
-9- 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
The rule prohibits a party from requesting to proceed in one manner and then contending on appeal
that the requested action was error. Id. The reason for the rule is that it would be manifestly unfair
to grant a party relief based on error introduced into the proceedings by that party. Id.
¶ 45 Here, the record does not support Mark’s argument that Janet acquiesced to the alleged
errors she now challenges. Janet filed pleadings requesting 65% of the marital estate, permanent
maintenance, and contribution to her attorney’s fees. Therefore, although Janet agreed to accept
the promissory note, she sought the same relief in the trial court that she now seeks here.
Accordingly, we reject Mark’s argument that Janet invited error in this case.
¶ 46 Mark also asserts that Janet’s arguments are waived because she did not object when the
trial court ordered M&J’s receiver to consummate the sale of the company with Mark receiving
cash and Janet receiving a promissory note. Mark fails to recognize that Janet is not challenging
the trial court’s order regarding the sale of M&J.
¶ 47 In addition, Mark argues that Janet’s arguments are waived or forfeited because she failed
to raise them in a postjudgment motion. We disagree with Mark. Janet’s failure to raise the alleged
errors in a postjudgment motion did not forfeit the issues here: in a civil nonjury case, no
postjudgment motion is necessary to preserve an issue on appeal. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 366(b)(3)(ii)
(eff. Feb. 1, 1994); In re Merilee M., 409 Ill. App. 3d 983, 986 (2011). We now address Janet’s
arguments.
¶ 48 A. Distribution of Marital Property
¶ 49 Janet contends that the trial court abused its discretion in its 50/50 distribution of marital
property in light of the relevant factors of section 503(d) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West
2022)). Janet argues that the relevant statutory factors weigh in favor of a 65/35 distribution in her
favor.
- 10 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
¶ 50 The Act requires the trial court to divide marital property in “just proportions,” considering
all relevant factors including, in part, the contribution of the parties to the marital property; the
value of the property assigned to each spouse; the duration of the marriage; the relevant economic
circumstances of each spouse when the division of property is to become effective; the age, health,
station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, and employability of the
parties; and the reasonable opportunity of each spouse to acquire capital assets and income in the
future. 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(1), (3), (4), (5), (8), (11) (West 2020).
¶ 51 A trial court’s distribution of marital property will not be reversed, absent an abuse of
discretion. In re Marriage of Klose, 2023 IL App (1st) 192253, ¶ 31. A trial court abuses its
discretion only where its ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or where no reasonable person would adopt
the view of the trial court. Brown v. Illinois State Police, 2021 IL 126153, ¶ 49.
¶ 52 Initially, we address Janet’s assertion that “the disparity between Mark’s and ‘her’ financial
circumstance[s] resulting from the trial court’s judgment shocks the conscience, and the court
should have never let that happen.” We also address her contention that she has little cash
compared to Mark because she “had to take” a promissory note for the sale of the business, whereas
Mark received cash. Janet mischaracterizes the facts. The trial court’s judgment did not cause the
disparity between the parties’ financial circumstances. Rather, the court awarded each party 50%
of the business, and if neither party bought out the other, the court would appoint a receiver to sell
the business and award each party 50% of the proceeds. Subsequently, neither party bought out
the other and Janet accepted a promissory note for 50% of the sale price to help Eric’s company
buy the business. Further, the trial court did not order Janet to accept a promissory note instead of
cash for the sale of her half of M&J. Janet cannot claim that the trial court committed error due to
Janet’s voluntary action taken after the court entered its judgment. Therefore, when considering
- 11 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
the relevant 503(d) factors, the trial court cannot be charged with failing to consider Janet’s
subsequent decision that rendered her with substantially less cash than Mark. Accordingly, we
address only those factors raised by Janet that do not rely on her assertion that she has less cash
($1,247,500) than Mark.
¶ 53 Janet contends that subsections 503(d)(1), (4), (5), (8), and (11) weigh in her favor because
of her contribution to M&J, the length of the marriage, and the parties’ respective skills: Mark is
a self-described “master machinist” while she is skilled at office work. See id. §§ 503(d)(1), (4),
(5), (8), and (11). We reject Janet’s argument.
¶ 54 Here, ample evidence supported the trial court’s determination of the appropriate
distribution of the marital estate, and Janet has not shown that its decision was an abuse of
discretion. Janet argues that her contribution to the parties’ business weighs in favor of a 65/35
distribution in her favor because she worked 50 to 60 hours a week, had a wide range of
responsibilities, and the business would not have been viable without her contribution. However,
Mark testified that at the beginning of the business he brought in the client that was responsible
for 95% of the business, and he ran the business for 15 years prior to these proceedings (he
programmed and operated machines, worked with customers and engineers, and managed the
financial aspects of the business). The trial court found that each party owned 50% of the business,
shared “a tremendous work ethic,” and each drew equal salaries. Therefore, the trial court properly
found that both parties contributed to M&J.
¶ 55 Further, after stating that it considered the factors set forth in the Act, the trial court
concluded that a 50/50 split of the marital property was just. The record indicates that the court
was aware of the parties’ separate contributions to the family business, and the parties’ ages, skills,
lack of formal education beyond high school, the duration of the marriage, and Janet’s contribution
- 12 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
by “working long hours as a manager at a White Castle while helping Mark start M&J all the time
raising [the parties’] two children.” The trial court considered the relevant 503(d) factors and did
not abuse its discretion when it distributed the marital property equally.
¶ 56 B. Maintenance
¶ 57 Janet contends that the trial court erred by failing to award her indefinite maintenance. She
urges us to reverse the trial court’s “refusal” to award her indefinite maintenance. Mark counters
that the trial court properly reserved the issue of maintenance.
¶ 58 In interpreting the provisions of a judgment of dissolution, we apply the rules for the
interpretation of contracts. In re Marriage of Figliulo, 2015 IL App (1st) 140290, ¶ 13. The
primary objective when interpreting a dissolution judgment is to carry out the intent of the court
at the time of entry. Id. The intent of the court is to be determined only by the language of the
dissolution judgment, absent an ambiguity. In re Marriage of Hendry, 409 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 1017
(2011).
¶ 59 It is clear from the trial court’s order that it reserved the issue of maintenance and did not
“refuse” to award Janet maintenance. Rather, the trial court’s order states, “Maintenance shall be
reserved until it is determined if either party is going to purchase M&J Machinery.”
¶ 60 The reservation of maintenance has statutory authority. Specifically, section 401(b) states:
“Judgment shall not be entered unless, to the extent it has jurisdiction to do so, the
court has considered, approved, reserved or made provision for *** the maintenance of
either spouse and the disposition of property. The court shall enter a judgment for
dissolution that reserves any of these issues either upon (i) agreement of the parties, or
(ii) motion of either party and a finding by the court that appropriate circumstances exist.”
(Emphasis added.) 750 ILCS 5/401(b) (West 2020).
- 13 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
We will not reverse the court’s decision to reserve the issue of maintenance unless the court abused
its discretion, which means that no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the
trial court. In re Marriage of Wojcik, 362 Ill. App. 3d 144, 168 (2005).
¶ 61 Here, the trial court reserved jurisdiction on the issue of maintenance because there was
uncertainty regarding the sale of M&J, the parties’ main marital asset. We determine that the trial
court’s decision to reserve maintenance was appropriate and well within the exercise of its
discretion. Neither party purchased M&J. If Janet files another petition seeking maintenance the
trial court shall consider it under the relevant 504(a) factors. 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2020).
Further, the trial court shall make specific findings of fact in accordance with section 504(b-2) of
the Act including its reasoning for awarding or not awarding maintenance and references to each
relevant section 504(a) factor. 750 ILCS 5/504(b-2) (West 2020).
¶ 62 C. Contribution to Attorney Fees
¶ 63 Janet contends that the trial court erred when it failed to grant her a hearing on her petition
for contribution to attorney fees. At the outset, we note that Mark argues that Janet has forfeited
this argument because she never requested a hearing on her petition. Mark’s argument is
unpersuasive.
¶ 64 Janet timely filed her petition for contribution to attorney fees as directed by the trial court
and section 503(j) of the Act. 750 ILCS 5/503(j) (West 2020). Section 503(j) provides:
“After proofs have closed in the final hearing on all other issues between the parties
(or in conjunction with the final hearing, if all parties so stipulate) and before judgment is
entered, a party’s petition for contribution to fees and costs incurred in the proceeding shall
be heard and decided.” Id.
- 14 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U
In In re Marriage of Brackett, 309 Ill. App. 3d 329, 345 (1999), we interpreted section 503(j) as
not “requiring an additional hearing, which would further burden already overburdened trial
courts, but, rather, as requiring the trial court to hear, through testimony or otherwise, additional
proofs *** in the context of preexisting proceedings.” In In re Marriage of Hasabnis, 322 Ill. App.
3d 582, 596 (2001), the court recognized the practical reality that, “[i]n most cases, once the trial
court has weighed marital property criteria and, if awarded, maintenance criteria, it will have
enough of a record to determine the contribution amount.”
¶ 65 Here, in its final judgment of dissolution, the trial court erroneously stated that Janet had
not filed a petition for contribution. Yet the trial court ordered that the parties “should each pay for
their own attorney fees.” Thus, although Janet was not entitled to a separate hearing on her petition,
she was entitled to have her petition heard and decided. See Brackett, 309 Ill. App. 3d at 345; 750
ILCS 5/503(j) (West 2020). Because the trial court stated that it did not know that Janet filed a
petition seeking contribution, the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her petition. For
this reason, we vacate that portion of the judgment denying Janet contribution for attorney fees
and remand for a hearing on her petition.
¶ 66 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 67 For the reasons stated, we affirm the portion of the judgment of the circuit court of Lake
County, regarding the distribution of marital assets and the reservation of maintenance. Further,
we vacate the portion of the judgment that denied Janet’s petition for contribution of attorney fees,
and we remand for further proceedings.
¶ 68 Affirmed, in part, vacated, in part, and remanded.
- 15 -