In re Marriage of Bradley v. Bradley

25 Citing cases

  1. Vance v. Joyner

    2019 Ill. App. 4th 190136 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 31 times

    " ‘Income’ for tax purposes is not synonymous with ‘income’ for determining child support." In re Marriage of Bradley , 2011 IL App (4th) 110392, ¶ 44, 356 Ill.Dec. 591, 961 N.E.2d 980. Instead, a parent's net income includes "the total of all income from all sources" (i.e. , gross income), excluding funds received from public

  2. In re Sobieski

    2013 Ill. App. 2d 111146 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 41 times

    “A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, without conscientious judgment, or, in view of all of the circumstances, exceeds the bounds of reason and ignores recognized principles of law, resulting in substantial injustice.” In re Marriage of Bradley,2011 IL App (4th) 110392, ¶ 26, 356 Ill.Dec. 591, 961 N.E.2d 980. For the following reasons, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the trial court's judgment. ¶ 38 Although attorney fees are generally the responsibility of the party who incurred the fees (see In re Marriage of Cantrell, 314 Ill.App.3d 623, 630, 247 Ill.Dec. 742, 732 N.E.2d 797 (2000)), section 508(a) of the Marriage Act permits a trial court to order a party to contribute to the other party's attorney fees in light of the parties' respective financial situations.

  3. In re Marriage of Yearman

    2023 Ill. App. 3d 220126 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    As a discovery sanction under Rule 219(c), a trial court may, among other things, prohibit an offending party from maintaining any particular claim, counterclaim, third-party complaint, or defense to which the discovery issue pertains or require the offending party to pay the opposing party's costs and attorney fees. See Ill. S.Ct. R. 219(c)(iii) (eff. July 1, 2002); In re Marriage of Bradley, 2011 IL App (4th) 110392, ¶ 19.

  4. In re Marriage of Conopeotis

    2022 Ill. App. 2d 191099 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    Among the "other factors" that a court may consider when making an award of attorney fees is whether a party unnecessarily increased the cost of litigation. In re Marriage of Patel, 2013 IL App (1st) 112571, ¶ 117; In re Marriage of Bradley, 2011 IL App (4th) 110392, ¶ 32; In reMarriage of Haken, 394 Ill.App.3d 155, 161 (2009). Further, in making a contribution award, the trial court must also consider whether the attorney fees charged are reasonable.

  5. Miller v. Miller (In re Marriage of Miller)

    2018 Ill. App. 4th 170932 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    In re Marriage of Benjamin, 2017 IL App (1st) 161862, ¶ 30, 82 N.E.3d 867. "A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, without conscientious judgment, or, in view of all of the circumstances, exceeds the bounds of reason and ignores recognized principles of law, resulting in substantial injustice." In re Marriage of Bradley, 2011 IL App (4th) 110392, ¶ 26, 961 N.E.2d 980. ¶ 62 In the case sub judice, Jennifer filed a motion for contribution of attorney fees and costs.

  6. Webb v. Lightsey (In re K.L.)

    2018 Ill. App. 4th 170294 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    "The trial court has discretion to impose a particular sanction and its decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion." In re Marriage of Bradley, 2011 IL App (4th) 110392, ¶ 20, 961 N.E.2d 980.¶ 58 The docket entries in the record show petitioner filed two motions to compel requesting attorney fees for alleged discovery violations.

  7. Somers v. Somers

    2016 Ill. App. 4th 150335 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    "A trial court's determination as to the awarding of maintenance is presumed to be correct." In re Marriage of Bradley, 2011 IL App (4th) 110392, ¶ 34, 961 N.E.2d 980. The amount of a maintenance award lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Nord, 402 Ill. App. 3d 288, 292, 932 N.E.2d 543, 548 (2010).

  8. Nolan v. Nolan

    2016 Ill. App. 150031 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, without conscientious judgment, or, in view of all of the circumstances, exceeds the bounds of reason and ignores recognized principles of law, resulting in substantial injustice." In re Marriage of Bradley, 2011 IL App (4th) 110392, ¶ 26. The question, therefore, is "whether any reasonable person could have taken the position adopted by the trial court."

  9. Marriage Portz v. Ludington (In re re)

    2015 Ill. App. 4th 150223 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    The court must consider all relevant statutory factors, but " 'it need not make specific findings as to the reasons for its decisions.' " In re Marriage of Bradley, 2011 IL App (4th) 110392, ¶ 36, 961 N.E.2d 980 (quoting In re Marriage of Reynard, 378 Ill. App. 3d 997, 1004, 883 N.E.2d 535, 541 (2008)). " 'The benchmark for determining the amount of maintenance is the recipient's reasonable needs in light of the standard of living established during the marriage.

  10. McGrath v. McGrath (In re Estate of McGrath)

    2015 Ill. App. 4th 140620 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    See, e.g., In re Marriage of Schneider, 214 Ill. 2d 152, 174, 824 N.E.2d 177, 190 (2005); In re Marriage of Pratt, 2014 IL App (1st) 130465, ¶ 36, 17 N.E.3d 678; In re Marriage of Micheli, 2014 IL App (2d) 121245, ¶ 44, 15 N.E.3d 512; In re Custody of C.C., 2013 IL App (3d) 120342, ¶ 40, 1 N.E.3d 1238; In re Marriage of Patel, 2013 IL App (1st) 122882, ¶ 42, 998 N.E.2d 579; In re Marriage of Price, 2013 IL App (4th) 120155, ¶ 39, 986 N.E.2d 236; In re Marriage of Patel, 2013 IL App (1st) 112571, ¶ 67, 993 N.E.2d 1062; In re Marriage of Bradley, 2013 IL App (5th) 100217, ¶ 41, 993 N.E.2d 25; In re Marriage of Sobieski, 2013 IL App (2d) 111146, ¶ 37, 984 N.E.2d 163; In re Marriage of S.D., 2012 IL App (1st) 101876, ¶ 55, 980 N.E.2d 1151; In re Marriage of Bolte, 2012 IL App (3d) 110791, ¶ 33, 975 N.E.2d 1257; In re Marriage of Baniak, 2011 IL App (1st) 092017, ¶ 9, 957 N.E.2d 469; In re Marriage of Streur, 2011 IL App (1st) 082326, ¶ 36, 955 N.E.2d 497; In re Marriage of Bradley, 2011 IL App (4th) 110392, ¶ 32, 961 N.E.2d 980; In re Marriage of Schinelli, 406 Ill. App. 3d 991, 995, 942 N.E.2d 682, 686 (2011).¶ 56 It should be plainly obvious to John that deferential review—not de novo review—applies to the trial court's award of attorney fees in dissolution proceedings.