Ulm v. Ulm

3 Citing cases

  1. Moore v. Moore

    53 Ill. App. 3d 228 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)   Cited 8 times

    The award is dependent on the parties' circumstances ( Rabin v. Rabin (1965), 57 Ill. App.2d 193, 206 N.E.2d 850; Arado v. Arado (1917), 281 Ill. 123, 117 N.E. 816) and is based upon an analysis of the income and assets of both parties ( Eule v. Eule). The supporting evidence must reflect the husband's financial ability is such that he can pay the alimony ordered by the court. Ulm v. Ulm (1971), 132 Ill. App.2d 726, 270 N.E.2d 581. From the testimony heard and the evidence presented at the hearings prior to the entry of the April 19 order, it appears that plaintiff and defendant separated in October 1975 after a three-year marriage.

  2. Hickey v. Hickey

    333 N.E.2d 271 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)   Cited 9 times

    • 4 It is lastly contended that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees to defendant in the sum of $1,250. The fee allowed by the trial court must be permitted to stand unless it is shown that the award amounted to an abuse of discretion. ( Ulm v. Ulm. 132 Ill. App.2d 726, 270 N.E.2d 581.) The qualifications of defendant's attorney, Morris L. Simons, were admitted by plaintiff.

  3. Popeil v. Popeil

    315 N.E.2d 629 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)   Cited 6 times

    • 4, 5 The defendant's final argument is that the award of temporary attorneys' fees was excessive. Here, too, the court's exercise of discretionary power will not be overturned unless abuse is shown. ( Ulm v. Ulm, 132 Ill. App.2d 726, 270 N.E.2d 581.) The plaintiff was obliged to show the defendant's ability and her own inability to pay the fees.