In re Marriage of Heroy, 2017 IL 120205

Background

Donna Tuke and David Heroy divorced in 2006; the circuit court awarded Tuke permanent maintenance of $35,000/month and each party their own fees.
Heroy petitioned to modify/terminate maintenance within a year, alleging reduced income; litigation ensued and Tuke sought contribution toward her substantial attorney fees and later prospective fees to defend appeals.
The circuit court found Heroy’s cash flow had substantially declined and reduced maintenance to $27,500/month; it ordered Heroy to pay $125,000 in past fees and $35,000 in prospective fees (total $160,000), applying considerations about Tuke’s financial stability.
The appellate court reversed the attorney-fee awards (finding insufficient record support that Tuke could not pay) and recalculated maintenance to $25,745/month, concluding the circuit court miscalculated a percentage of cash flow.
The Illinois Supreme Court granted review on whether the appellate court properly applied section 508 and related precedent, whether the circuit court miscalculated maintenance, and whether Tuke’s fee award was appropriate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Tuke)	Defendant's Argument (Heroy)	Held
Standard for awarding contribution to attorney fees under §508	§508 requires courts to apply §503(j) factors; Schneider’s “inability to pay” standard should be read through those factors, not as a strict bar	Schneider and prior precedent require the party seeking fees to show inability to pay and the other’s ability to pay	Court: The statutory factors and the “inability to pay” standard complement each other; inability to pay means paying all fees would undermine financial stability, determined by §503(j) factors
Whether circuit court abused discretion in awarding $160,000 toward Tuke’s fees	Circuit court correctly found Tuke’s financial stability would be undermined by paying all fees and Heroy has ability to pay	Appellate court erred in vacating fees for lack of record support	Court: Circuit court did not abuse its discretion; award of $160,000 affirmed
Whether the circuit court miscalculated modified maintenance and whether appellate court properly recalculated	Tuke: circuit court’s $27,500 award was a considered approximation based on many factors, not a strict percentage calculation; no recalculation needed	Heroy: circuit court intended a percentage of cash flow and miscalculated, so maintenance should be reduced further	Court: No calculation error; circuit court intended an approximate figure and properly considered statutory factors; $27,500 affirmed
Whether Tuke’s post-divorce efforts to become self-supporting justified further reduction in maintenance	Tuke: prior finding that she could not reasonably attain prior standard of living is not displaced; court properly considered her rehabilitation efforts and found them adequate	Heroy: Tuke failed to reasonably pursue self-supporting employment and maintenance should be reduced	Court: Circuit court reviewed and reasonably found Tuke’s efforts sufficient; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Schneider, 214 Ill. 2d 152 (2005) (articulated that party seeking fees must show inability to pay and other spouse’s ability to pay)
In re Marriage of Bussey, 108 Ill. 2d 286 (1985) (courts consider relative incomes, assets, and circumstances when awarding fees)
In re Marriage of Cotton, 103 Ill. 2d 346 (1984) (equitable considerations can require fee contribution beyond strict income comparison)
In re Marriage of Pagano, 154 Ill. 2d 174 (1992) (upheld partial fee award where paying all fees would undermine petitioner’s stability)
Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (2009) (maintenance and modification decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)