Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Marriage of Kane

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District, Second Division

March 28, 2017

In re MARRIAGE OF GREGORY PHILLIP KANE, Petitioner-Appellee, and HEATHER ANN KANE, Respondent-Appellee Michael D. Canulli, Appellant.

         Rehearing denied March 28, 2017

         Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County, No. 14-D-1199; the Hon. Linda E. Davenport, Judge, presiding.

          Michael D. Canulli, of Naperville, appellant pro se.

          Natalie M. Stec, of Wolfe & Stec, Ltd., of Woodridge, for appellee Gregory Kane.

          Amy L. Jonaitis and James M. Quigley, of Beerman Pritikin Mirabelli Swerdlove LLP, of Chicago, for other appellee.

          JUSTICE SPENCE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McLaren and Schostok concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          SPENCE JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 This dispute concerns fees sought by attorney Michael D. Canulli, who represented petitioner, Gregory Phillip Kane, during a portion of his dissolution-of-marriage proceeding. Upon withdrawing as counsel, Canulli filed against Gregory a petition for setting final fees and costs pursuant to section 508(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/508(c) (West 2014)), and against respondent, Heather Ann Kane, a petition for contribution pursuant to section 503(j) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/503(j) (West 2014)). In both petitions, Canulli sought an award of approximately $48, 000, which was in addition to the $37, 500 that he had already been paid. Following a full evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Canulli's request for contribution from Heather, but awarded Canulli $12, 500 on his petition against Gregory. Because the trial court's rulings on the petitions were not an abuse of discretion, we affirm.

         ¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

         ¶ 3 Gregory and Heather were married in 1995 and have two minor children. In June 2014, Gregory filed a pro se petition for dissolution of marriage. He thereafter retained Canulli on July 1, 2014. Canulli and Gregory's written engagement agreement provided that, if Gregory had an objection regarding any of Canulli's billing statements, he would notify Canulli in writing within seven days of receiving the statement; otherwise, the objection would be considered waived. Canulli filed his appearance on behalf of Gregory on July 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, the trial court entered an order awarding Canulli $37, 500 in interim attorney fees, by way of a qualified domestic relations order that partially liquidated Heather's retirement account. Canulli's billing records indicated that from July 1, 2014, through September 23, 2014, he billed Gregory approximately $35, 000 in attorney fees. On January 15, 2015, Canulli filed a second petition for interim fees, seeking an additional $72, 000. According to the petition, said sum would satisfy his then-unpaid fees of $37, 000 and provide an additional retainer of $35, 000.

         ¶ 4 On February 4, 2015, Canulli sent Gregory an email, stating that his balance due was nearly $43, 000, that he would be willing to stay on the case if Gregory and Heather entered an agreed order to each receive $200, 000 from Heather's retirement account, and that Gregory would have to further agree to use $90, 000 to pay Canulli's fees, with the surplus funds constituting an additional retainer.

         ¶ 5 Gregory did not agree, and on February 10, 2015, Canulli filed an emergency motion to withdraw as counsel, alleging an inability to communicate with Gregory and unpaid attorney fees. On February 13, 2015, the trial court granted Canulli's request to withdraw his appearance and also granted him leave to file fee petitions. Gregory represented himself for several weeks and then retained new counsel, who entered an appearance on April 23, 2015. Said counsel continues to represent Gregory in this appeal.

         ¶ 6 Within the dissolution action, on April 15, 2015, Canulli filed against Gregory a petition for setting final fees and costs pursuant to section 508(c) of the Act. Canulli also filed against Heather a petition for contribution pursuant to section 503(j) of the Act. The engagement agreement and 28 pages of itemized billing statements were among the exhibits attached to the fee petitions. In both petitions, Canulli acknowledged that he had already been paid $37, 500 in fees, but he alleged that he was owed an additional $48, 000.

         ¶ 7 On May 1, 2015, the trial court entered a judgment for dissolution of marriage, which incorporated a marital settlement agreement and a joint parenting agreement. Said judgment awarded Gregory and Heather joint legal custody of the children, awarded Heather primary residential custody of the children, established a visitation schedule, and awarded Gregory $27, 000 in maintenance in gross.

         ¶ 8 The trial court held a day-long evidentiary hearing on Canulli's fee petitions on July 2, 2015. The court took judicial notice of the court file and admitted into evidence Canulli's 28 pages of itemized billing statements, which reflected that he had billed Gregory for 268.7 hours from July 2014 until he withdrew in February 2015. At the hearing, Canulli testified, in relevant part, as follows. He had practiced family law for 38 years. Gregory filed a number of pleadings pro se, which Canulli agreed was not normal or customary. The total fees incurred in Canulli's representation of Gregory were $85, 529.86, of which he had been paid $37, 500. Canulli thus sought the remaining balance of more than $48, 000. Gregory and Heather had no ability to communicate or resolve any matters in the case, and "the case was litigious on both ends." Gregory was "unusually extraordinarily emotional" about the divorce. Gregory and Canulli exchanged emails almost every day, and sometimes more than once a day. Canulli also testified as to his billing practices that he recorded services contemporaneously when rendered and that he reviewed each bill for accuracy before mailing it to Gregory.

         ¶ 9 On cross-examination, Canulli was questioned regarding billing entries that opposing counsel asserted were unreasonable and unnecessary. Much of the hearing was spent going line-by-line through these entries. Canulli was questioned regarding time that he billed to review pleadings that, according to his billing statements, were filed by Heather when in fact no such pleadings had been filed. Canulli also billed for drafting motions that were not noticed or presented to the court and in some cases never filed. Canulli acknowledged that he did not prepare for trial, nor did he prepare a trial notebook, parenting agreement, or marital settlement agreement. On several days he billed more than 10 hours on Gregory's case.

         ¶ 10 Gregory testified as follows. He was employed by the Illinois River Winery, a corporation of which he was the sole shareholder and director and from which he drew an annual salary of $18, 000. Gregory was awarded the business by way of the parties' marital settlement agreement. The corporation had recently emerged from chapter 11 bankruptcy, and Gregory operated it judgment-free. The gross receipts for the winery in 2014 were approximately $500, 000, and its checking account contained approximately $3000. The winery owned the real property it was situated on, but the property was encumbered by several loans, totaling approximately $200, 000. By way of the marital settlement agreement, Gregory was receiving ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.