Indirect Civil Contempt and Breach of Contract: A Case of Marital Property Dispute, Lecture notes of Law

Download Indirect Civil Contempt and Breach of Contract: A Case of Marital Property Dispute and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court In re Marriage of O’Malley, 2016 IL App (1st) 151118 Appellate Court Caption In re MARRIAGE OF KIM MATSON O’MALLEY, n/k/a/ Kim Godfrey, Petitioner-Appellee, and PAUL R. O’MALLEY, Respondent-Appellant. District & No. First District, Fifth Division Docket Nos. 1-15-1118, 1-15-2908 cons. Filed Rehearing denied September 23, 2016 November 23, 2016 Decision Under Review Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 01-D-14530; the Hon. Patricia Logue, Judge, presiding. Judgment Affirmed in part and vacated in part. Counsel on Appeal Sean O’Malley and Paul R. O’Malley, both of Law Offices of Paul R. O’Malley, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant. Rhonda de Freitas, of Chicago-Kent Law Offices, of Chicago, for appellee. Panel PRESIDING JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Reyes and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion. - 2 - OPINION ¶ 1 Petitioner Kim Godfrey filed a petition to dissolve her marriage to respondent Paul R. O’Malley, and the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage, which incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA) signed by the parties. After the entry of the judgment for dissolution of marriage, the parties continued to litigate the terms of the MSA, including the terms related to the disposition of the former marital residence. While two appeals concerning the MSA have been before this court, the instant appeal concerns the trial court finding Paul in “indirect civil contempt” for failing to abide by the MSA’s September 1, 2007, deadline for selling the marital residence or buying out Kim’s interest in the residence and its orders concerning the distribution of the proceeds from the sale of the residence and awarding Kim attorney fees. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and vacate in part the trial court’s order. ¶ 2 BACKGROUND ¶ 3 Kim Godfrey and Paul O’Malley were married on November 18, 1983. 1 In 2001, Kim filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, alleging irreconcilable differences as the reason for the dissolution. Kim and Paul executed an MSA on July 16, 2003, which contained, inter alia, a provision concerning the marital residence, a single family home located in Oak Park, Illinois. The trial court entered a judgment for dissolution of the marriage on the same day, which incorporated the MSA. The provision concerning the marital residence stated the following: “Paul and Kim will retain title and interest in Oak Park Marital real estate *** as tenants in common while PAUL maintains possession exclusive of KIM; PAUL will either place the Oak Park home for sale on or before September 1, 2007, or buy out Kim’s interest. In the event that PAUL elects to buy out KIM’s interest—or the home is listed for sale—the parties will each have the right to obtain separate SRA appraisals to determine the then current average market sale price. If the first two (2) separate appraisals are not more than $100,000 apart, either party may elect to have the first two (2) appraisers designated a 3rd SRA appraiser to submit an independent appraisal, and in that event, the current average market sale price shall be determined by averaging the two (2) highest appraisals obtained. Cost of an appraisal shall be borne by the party requesting an appraisal. Kim will receive on sale or buy out by PAUL, as set forth below: (1) If the Oak Park marital home is sold to third party(ies), KIM will receive 50% of the net sale proceeds or at least $550,000, whichever is greater, after deduction from the gross sale proceeds of any realtor or sales commission, closing costs and for $250,000 representing the mortgage and home equity debt and any credit due PAUL as stated herein. PAUL must have paid all expenses due on the property prior to sale including all payments due on mortgages, home equity loans, liens, taxes, insurance and utilities, and any such unpaid obligations will be deducted from PAUL’s share of the equity realized from the sale of the residence. PAUL will receive a credit for costs 1 As this case has come before this court on two previous appeals, we take all relevant facts from our previous decisions. In re Marriage of O’Malley, 2013 IL App (1st) 131641-U; In re Marriage of O’Malley, No. 1-10-2639 (2011) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). - 5 - ¶ 10 II. Contempt Trial ¶ 11 The trial on Kim’s petition for rule to show cause commenced in September 2013, and both parties called witnesses to testify on their behalf. Paul testified on his own behalf, while Kim presented the testimony of (1) Catherine Deam, Kim and Paul’s real estate agent for the marital residence; (2) Robert Polachek, Paul’s previous attorney; (3) Barbara Binik, the 2008 prospective buyers’ realtor; and (4) herself. Since Paul does not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact, we relate here only the facts needed to understand the issues on appeal. ¶ 12 Deam testified 3 that she was chosen as Paul and Kim’s realtor to sell the marital residence, which was placed on the market later than the September 1, 2007, date specified in the MSA due to the staging of the marital residence, maintenance completed on the property, and the selection process of choosing a realtor that Paul and Kim both agreed upon; Deam explained that the marital residence was considered a historic home, as it was built by the architects Tallmadge and Watson, and she had experience in selling historic homes similar to the marital residence. The residence was eventually placed on the market in April 2008 for $2.3 million, and Deam received an offer from prospective buyers for $1.775 million. ¶ 13 Robert Polachek testified that after Paul received the offer from the prospective buyers, Paul asked Polachek to seek a modification of the final offer with respect to the closing date and radon mitigation costs. Polachek testified that an e-mail with a counteroffer regarding the closing date and the radon costs was sent at 6:39 p.m. on September 17, 2008. Polachek also testified that the prospective buyers did not respond and the sale was subsequently terminated. ¶ 14 Barbara Binik, the prospective buyers’ realtor, testified that on September 17, 2008, around 12:48 p.m., she sent Deam a fax on behalf of her clients with a new offer. She additionally testified that this new offer was to be terminated at 9 p.m. that evening. ¶ 15 At trial, Kim testified that she and Paul agreed to use Deam as their realtor because she and Paul felt that the property’s historic status required a certain level of experience and they believed Deam was qualified to sell the marital residence. Kim testified that on August 11, 2008, Kim and Paul received an offer on the property and that, through a series of negotiations, both parties agreed upon a price of $1.875 million for the marital property. The prospective buyers imposed a 9 p.m. deadline on their final offer. Kim testified that she signed the final offer prior to this deadline, but Paul did not. Kim testified that she became aware of the incomplete sale on September 22, 2008. ¶ 16 Prior to the prospective buyers’ final offer, Paul testified that he had the financial ability to buy out Kim’s interest in the marital residence but chose not to buy out her interest because it was not in his financial best interest to do so. In regard to the prospective buyers’ final offer, Paul testified at trial that he told his attorney to e-mail the prospective buyers and seek a modification on the final offer. Paul testified that after the prospective buyers’ final offer terminated, the price of the marital residence was reduced over the years, and the final asking price was reduced to $1.59 million in 2012. The property sold in May 2012 for $1.5 million. 3 Deam provided an evidence deposition on May 2, 2012, and her deposition was used in lieu of live testimony. - 6 - ¶ 17 III. Contempt Order ¶ 18 On April 2, 2014, the trial court found Paul to be in “indirect civil contempt” and ordered Paul to pay an amount equal to half of the 2008 final offer of $1.875 million. Additionally, the trial court found Kim, Polachek, and Binik to be credible witnesses and Paul to be an incredible witness. The trial court ordered the following: “(A) [t]he court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; (B) [t]he petition for Rule to Show Cause is granted. Paul failed to show cause for his failure to comply with the MSA and JDOM property provisions; (C) Paul R. O’Malley is held in indirect civil contempt of court for his willful and contumacious failures to abide by the parties’ MSA and JDOM as set forth above, including failing to comply with the September 1, 2007, MSA deadline and related obligations; recklessly destroying the September 17, 2008, contract opportunity for Kim without good cause; and failing repeatedly to deal fairly and in good faith with Kim and her contractual interests; (D) Paul breached his contract with Kim under the MSA by these same actions, causing her economic losses and other harms; (E) Paul shall pay Kim; 1) $153,473.30, representing the remaining principal due owing from the MSA distribution formula, after paying from Paul to Kim [the amount] of $157,000 from the escrow account; 2) $120,115.90 on prejudgment interest on the full principal amount of $310,473.30 at 5% per annum simple interest for the period from September 1, 2007, through entry of the court’s judgment as an equitable remedy for the delays, expenses and other harms Paul caused to Kim during this period; 3) $14,487.65 for reimbursement of real estate taxes charged to Kim; and 4) 9% interest per annum on all amounts due and owing upon this judgment, until fully paid per 735 ILCS 5/2-1303; (F) [a]ll remaining funds in the escrow fund will be distributed to Kim with Paul receiving credits, as described above; (G) Kim’s motion to strike Paul’s affirmative defense of laches as to Count I of the Petition is granted; (H) Paul’s motion to dismiss Count II of Kim’s Petition of alleged lack of citation to legal authority is denied; [I] [t]he court incorporates by reference its prior rulings in this case, including rulings on dispositive motions; (J) [t]he parties may file any petitions for fees costs, and/or contribut[ions] arising under a statute and/or the MSA within 35 days of this order; and (K) [t]he court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this order.” ¶ 19 IV. Posttrial Motions ¶ 20 Paul filed his posttrial motion to vacate the court’s order on April 29, 2014. The posttrial motion was denied on March 18, 2015. On April 17, 2015, Paul filed his notice of appeal based on the contempt findings and the amount of proceeds awarded to Kim that were based upon the 2008 final offer price. On September 17, 2015, the trial court awarded Kim $64,229.43 for attorney fees and costs. On October 13, 2015, Paul filed a notice of appeal on the trial court’s finding that Kim was entitled to recover for attorney fees and costs. Both appeals, regarding the contempt finding and the amount awarded to Kim including attorney fees, were consolidated on November 5, 2015. ¶ 21 ANALYSIS ¶ 22 On appeal, Paul argues that (1) Paul was actually held in indirect criminal contempt, not indirect civil contempt, which violated his constitutional rights, (2) the trial court’s damages - 7 - award for breach of “the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” was invalid, (3) the trial court did not have the authority to modify the terms of the property provisions of the parties’ MSA, (4) the trial court did not have the authority to award prejudgment interest as a remedy for contempt, (5) the petition for rule to show cause failed to state a cause of action and his motion to dismiss should have been granted, and (6) Kim was not entitled to attorney fees based off a fee-shifting provision in the MSA. We consider each argument in turn. ¶ 23 I. Contempt ¶ 24 Paul first argues that he was held in indirect criminal contempt in violation of his constitutional rights. Paul claims that the trial court’s contempt finding was actually criminal in nature because the requirements under the MSA no longer existed. By contrast, Kim contends that Paul was properly found to be in indirect civil contempt, as Paul was not punished by the court but coerced into complying with the MSA. The trial provided the following reasons as its basis for the indirect civil contempt finding: “Paul *** is held in indirect civil contempt *** for his willful and contumacious failure to abide by the parties’ MSA and JDOM as set forth above, including failing to comply with the September 1, 2007, deadline and related obligations; recklessly destroying the September 17, 2008, contract opportunity for Kim without good cause; and failing repeatedly to deal fairly and in good faith with Kim and her contractual interests.” ¶ 25 When a contempt appeal is filed, the standard of review is an abuse of discretion. Illinois Emcasco Insurance Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 393 Ill. App. 3d 782, 785 (2009). A trial court abuses its discretion only when “ ‘no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.’ ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Willbourn v. Cavalenes, 398 Ill. App. 3d 837, 848 (2010) (quoting Foley v. Fletcher, 361 Ill. App. 3d 39, 46 (2005)). “Whether a contempt finding should be vacated is a question to be determined on the individual facts of the particular appeal.” Dole v. Township High School District 211, 2015 IL App (1st) 140857, ¶ 121 (citing Consolidation Coal v. Bucyrus-Eire Co., 89 Ill. 2d 103, 122 (1982)). ¶ 26 In order to determine whether a contempt finding is civil or criminal in nature, it is important to consider “ ‘the purpose for which the contempt sanctions are imposed.’ ” Emery v. Northeast Illinois Regional Transportation Co., 374 Ill. App. 3d 974, 977 (2007) (quoting In re Marriage of Sharp, 369 Ill App. 3d 271, 278 (2006)). Civil contempt is “ ‘designed to compel future compliance with a court order’ ” and is “ ‘avoidable through obedience.’ ” Emery, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 977 (quoting Sharp, 369 Ill. App. 3d at 279). A person held in civil contempt must have the ability to purge the contempt by complying with the court order. Pryweller v. Pryweller, 218 Ill. App. 3d 619, 633 (1991). Contempt based on past actions which cannot be undone means that the contemnor lacks the ability to purge the contempt (see Luttrell v. Panozzo, 252 Ill. App. 3d 597, 602 (1993)) because the purpose of civil contempt is to compel compliance with court orders, not to punish (County of Cook v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co., 59 Ill. 2d 131, 135 (1974)). Therefore, whenever a court order cannot be complied with, there cannot be a finding of civil contempt. In re Marriage of Betts, 200 Ill. App. 3d 26, 46 (1990). ¶ 27 By contrast, criminal contempt is “ ‘instituted to punish, as opposed to coerce, *** for past contumacious conduct.’ ” Emery, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 977 (quoting Sharp, 369 Ill. App. 3d at - 10 - opportunity, and failing to repeatedly deal in good faith with Kim. However, the trial court indicated that breach of contract was an alternative basis to its contempt findings by stating, “Should the contempt finding or remedy be invalidated for any reason, in whole or in part, the parallel contract remedy shall apply instead as to any invalid portions.” As we find the contempt finding to be improper, it is therefore necessary to consider whether the alternative contract remedy was legally proper. ¶ 35 Paul bases his argument on the allegation that Kim’s petition did not state a claim for breach of contract or upon a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As a result, Paul argues that Kim is unable to recover from a cause of action that was not pleaded in her pleadings. Paul contends that this finding should also be vacated so that Paul can demand a jury trial and provide a proper defense. Kim argues that the trial court merely provided an alternative basis to find that Paul violated the MSA. ¶ 36 A trial court can determine whether a party to an MSA violated the agreement between the parties. See In re Marriage of Lyman, 2015 IL App (1st) 132832. Judges in the domestic relations division make these decisions almost on a daily basis. ¶ 37 In the case at bar, the trial court found that “Paul breached his contract with Kim under the MSA *** causing her economic losses and other harms.” The trial court found that Paul’s conduct in not notifying, discussing, or obtaining Kim’s approval to counteroffer or to buy her out was a willful and contumacious failure to abide by the parties’ MSA. The trial court found that Paul recklessly destroyed the September 17, 2008, offer to purchase and repeatedly failed to deal with Kim fairly and in good faith. ¶ 38 Paul correctly states that in Illinois, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is “not an independent source of duties for the parties to a contract.” Fox v. Heimann, 375 Ill. App. 3d 35, 42 (2007). However, although the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is included among the reasons by the trial court as to why Paul was found to be in breach of the MSA, it is not the sole basis the trial court used to find that Paul breached the contract. Thus, we review the question of the trial court’s finding that Paul breached the MSA in light of all of the trial court’s stated reasons, not just the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. ¶ 39 The express terms of the MSA stated that Paul was required to either put the marital residence up for sale on or before September 1, 2007, or buy out Kim’s interest. The home was not up for sale by the expressed deadline, and Paul did not buy out Kim’s interest. Furthermore, the trial court found that Paul failed to provide a credible reason as to why he failed to comply with the September 1, 2007, deadline. Paul also testified that he had the ability to buy out Kim’s share of the property, but chose not to do so, thus testifying that he chose not to comply with the contract. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s finding of Paul to be in breach of the MSA. ¶ 40 III. Trial Court Authority to Modify the MSA ¶ 41 Next, Paul argues that the trial court did not have authority to modify the terms of the property provisions of the parties’ MSA. Paul seeks a remand for redistribution of the sale proceeds in accordance with the unmodified provisions of the MSA. Kim contends that the court had the inherent power to enforce its judgments and that the terms of the MSA are enforceable by all remedies available. Additionally, Kim argues that the trial court merely modified the valuation provisions of the marital residence. In the case at bar, the trial court determined that the property distribution formula, which establishes the amount Kim is entitled - 11 - to, should be calculated based upon the offer for the purchase of the marital home tendered to Paul and Kim in 2008. We agree with Kim that the trial court did not modify the terms of the MSA, but rather enforced the terms of the MSA. ¶ 42 The trial court’s jurisdiction over a modification to the parties’ MSA is a question of law and thus subject to de novo review. In re Marriage of Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d 160, 164 (2010); In re Marriage of Allen, 343 Ill. App. 3d 410, 412 (2003). De novo review means the reviewing court performs the same analysis that a trial judge would perform. Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 408 Ill. App. 3d 564, 578 (2011). A trial court may not revoke or modify property dispositions “ ‘unless the court finds the existence of [a condition] that justif[ies] the reopening of a judgment under the laws of this State.’ ” Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 164 (quoting 750 ILCS 5/510(b) (West 2008)). After a 30-day period, 5 property provisions in an MSA are not modifiable, but a trial court has jurisdiction to modify property distribution if circumstances exist that give cause to reopen a judgment as in other civil cases. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 164; In re Marriage of Hubbard, 215 Ill. App. 3d 113, 116 (1991). A reopening of a judgment is deemed proper if the MSA execution had some element of fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation. In re Marriage of Munford, 173 Ill. App. 3d 576, 579 (1988); Thompson v. Thompson, 91 Ill. App. 3d 943, 945 (1980). However, a trial court has indefinite jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a judgment that included an MSA, and that is what the trial court did here. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 164. ¶ 43 In Hall, the petitioner and respondent’s judgment for dissolution of marriage incorporated an MSA entered into by the parties, which contained two provisions concerning the division of the respondent’s retirement plans. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. One provision provided that the parties would enter into a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) providing for the distribution of 50% of the account balance of two specified retirement plans to the petitioner. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 162-63. The second provision provided that “ ‘[i]t is the intention of this [article] that [petitioner] is to receive fifty percent (50%) of the account balance of each of [respondent’s] retirement plans valued as of the date of the entry of this [judgment for dissolution of marriage].’ ” Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 163. After the division of assets, the petitioner noticed that she had not received benefits from two additional pension plans belonging to the respondent and filed a petition to modify or reform the dissolution judgment, alleging that the pension plans had been omitted from the MSA due to a mutual mistake of fact. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 163. The trial court found that it did not have jurisdiction to modify or reform the judgment because the petitioner did not first establish a basis to vacate the judgment as a result of duress, disability, or fraudulent concealment. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 163. ¶ 44 On appeal, the Hall court found that the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce the MSA without first establishing a basis to vacate the dissolution judgment because “petitioner is not seeking to impose new or different obligations on the parties. Rather she is attempting to enforce the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to respondent’s retirement plans, which were clearly laid out in the marital settlement agreement and judgment of dissolution.” Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 165. Accordingly, the court proceeded to interpret the language of the 5 Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, any party, within 30 days after the entry of the judgment, may file a motion for a rehearing, retrial, or modification of the judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-1203 (West 2014). - 12 - agreement to determine if the parties had intended to include all four retirement plans or only the two specified in the agreement. Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 167. ¶ 45 We find the Hall court’s analysis instructive. See Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 161. In the case at bar, the trial court was enforcing Paul and Kim’s MSA by using the valuation of the sale that should have been completed, but was not, due to Paul’s conduct in breaching the MSA. The trial court did not modify the MSA but rather enforced the terms of the MSA that required Paul to pay Kim a specified amount. The amount Paul was to pay was based on a distribution formula that was based upon the marital home being sold to a third party in which Kim would receive 50% of the net sales proceeds or at least $550,000, whichever was greater. ¶ 46 Paul cites In re Marriage of Clark, 149 Ill. App. 3d 613, 617 (1986), and In re Marriage of Hubbard, 215 Ill. App. 3d at 117, to illustrate how a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to modify the judgment for dissolution of marriage, specifically with respect to the parties’ marital residence. In Clark, the defendant filed a petition to modify the property division of the parties’ MSA to transfer possession of the marital residence to him and to execute a quitclaim deed in his favor. In re Marriage of Clark, 149 Ill. App. 3d at 614. The reviewing court affirmed the trial court’s determination to deny the defendant’s petition, as requiring the plaintiff to convey her interest to the defendant through a quitclaim deed required the court to modify the judgment. In re Marriage of Clark, 149 Ill. App. 3d at 618. Paul’s use of Clark is not instructive to this court, as the parties in Clark were required to comply with an additional obligation, while Kim’s petition merely seeks enforcement of the existing MSA. In re Marriage of Clark, 149 Ill. App. 3d at 617. ¶ 47 In Hubbard, the reviewing court was to determine whether the trial court’s award for expenses incurred during the preparation for placing the marital residence on the market was beyond its jurisdiction. Hubbard, 215 Ill. App. 3d at 114. The Hubbard court found that apportionment of expenses that were not expressly stated in the MSA could not be enforced by the trial court, regardless of equitable and reasonable circumstances to enforce the apportionment. Hubbard, 215 Ill. App. 3d at 118. Like Clark, Hubbard does not provide this court with any guidance as that case involved a dispute over repair and maintenance requests and the trial court’s order requiring the respondent to pay for a portion of the repairs not covered under the MSA, while the case at bar only required Paul to comply with the MSA and did not impose any additional obligations or costs on Paul. Hubbard, 215 Ill. App. 3d at 114. While both cases show that the trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify an MSA under these specific circumstances, the trial court in the case at bar was merely enforcing the terms and provisions that Paul and Kim agreed upon. ¶ 48 In the case at bar, the trial court was enforcing, not modifying, the MSA by using the valuation of the sale that should have been completed, but was not, due to Paul’s conduct. The trial court found that Paul’s conduct was the reason that the 2008 offer was not accepted and based its award upon the 2008 lost sale. The trial court’s order, based upon Paul’s conduct, actually enforced the MSA and did not modify it. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s use of the lost 2008 sale price in the MSA distribution formula. ¶ 49 IV. Prejudgment Interest Award ¶ 50 Paul next contends that the trial court lacked authority to award prejudgment interest to Kim. The trial court found that a prejudgment interest award was warranted due to Paul’s failing to comply with the MSA’s September 1, 2007, deadline, recklessly destroying a - 15 - award. Neither party contests Kim’s award for real estate taxes charged to her, and in turn it will not be addressed. Finally, a contract that includes a fee-shifting provision will generally be enforced by the courts, and we enforce the attorney fees as we discuss below. Each award that was given to Kim was properly awarded to her, as damages are proper in a breach of contract action. See InsureOne Independent Insurance Agency, LLC v. Hallberg, 2012 IL App (1st) 092385, ¶ 89 (“ ‘[A]ll damages which naturally and generally result from a breach [of contract] are recoverable.’ ” (quoting Midland Hotel Corp. v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp., 118 Ill. 2d 306, 318 (1987))). Thus, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Paul’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. ¶ 58 VI. Contribution of Attorney Fees and Costs ¶ 59 Finally, Paul argues that the award of attorney fees and costs, based upon the fee-shifting provision in the MSA, should be reversed because contractual fee-shifting provisions should only be rewarded to a prevailing party. Paul contends that the “American Rule,” in which litigants are required to pay their own attorney fees, should be applied to the case at bar. Citing to Powers v. Rockford Stop-N-Go, Inc., 326 Ill. App. 3d 511, 516 (2001), Paul attempts to argue that the trial court did not compel him to perform some type of act, and thus the fee-shifting provision cannot be acted upon. 7 Additionally, Paul argues that the enactment of the MSA’s fee-shifting provision requires two conditions to occur: (1) there is an enforcement of a condition and (2) the condition enforced is found within the terms and provisions of this agreement. Thus, Paul contends that because neither prerequisite is satisfied in the case at bar, Kim should not be able to recover attorney fees and costs. Kim argues that the award of attorney fees and costs was proper and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Powers, 252 Ill. App. 3d 506, 508-09 (1993). The MSA states the following: “If Paul fails to perform his financial and other undertakings, and as a result Kim incurs any expenses including legal fees to enforce the terms and provisions of the agreement, Paul shall indemnify her against and hold her harmless in connection with any such expenses even [though] Kim at the time, may have the ability to pay her own such expenses.” ¶ 60 The standard of review for a trial court’s determination of awarding attorney fees and costs is an abuse of discretion. Bright Horizons Children’s Centers, LLC v. Riverway Midwest II, LLC, 403 Ill. App. 3d 234, 245 (2010). “ ‘[W]hether and in what amount to award attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court, and the decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.’ ” Bright Horizons Children’s Centers, 403 Ill. App. 3d at 245 (quoting R.J. Management Co. v. SRLB Development Corp., 346 Ill. App. 3d 957, 971 (2004)). An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or when 7 We find Paul’s use of Powers unpersuasive, as Kim was the prevailing party in the trial court’s order. In Powers, the attorney fees provision did not apply because the trial court held that the matter of property damages was independent of the lease between both parties. Powers, 252 Ill. App. 3d at 517. Additionally, the appellate court determined that because the defendant prevailed on a majority of the issues before the trial court and the plaintiff prevailed on only issues related to property damage, the trial court abused its discretion, as the plaintiff was not the prevailing party in the matter, which means the trial court should not have awarded attorney fees. Powers, 252 Ill. App. 3d at 518. - 16 - no reasonable person would take the same view.” Favia v. Ford Motor Co., 381 Ill. App. 3d 809, 815 (2008). ¶ 61 Ordinarily, a losing party in a lawsuit cannot be required to pay attorney fees to the winning party, but if there is a contractual “fee-shifting” provision for the award of attorney fees, it will be enforced by the courts. Bright Horizons Children’s Centers, 403 Ill. App. 3d at 254. If a fee-shifting provision for attorney fees is present in a contractual obligation, we are required to strictly construe the provision. Bright Horizons Children’s Centers, 403 Ill. App. 3d at 254. ¶ 62 Kim was awarded $64,229.43 for attorney fees and costs, based upon the fee-shifting provision in the MSA. As the fee-shifting provision states, Paul was required to indemnify Kim for any expenses, including legal fees, that were a result of her attempting to enforce the terms and provisions of the MSA. The trial court determined that the $64,229.43 was the correct amount to award Kim for her attorney fees and costs, as Paul was found to be in breach of contract for failing to abide by the provisions of the MSA. Due to the extensive litigation history surrounding the case at bar, combined with the trial court’s findings of Paul interfering and intentionally ignoring the MSA, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when awarding attorney fees. Eight years have passed since the original petition for rule to show cause was filed and four years since the home has been sold. Paul’s appeals on the MSA resulted in an extensive delay in the trial on Kim’s petition for rule to show cause. Likewise, it was Paul’s conduct that resulted in the lost 2008 sale and the breached contract. Paul’s conduct has resulted in Kim incurring large amounts of attorney fees. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order awarding attorney fees and costs to Kim. ¶ 63 CONCLUSION ¶ 64 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part and vacate in part the order of the circuit court of Cook County. We find that the trial court abused its discretion when finding Paul to be in indirect civil contempt and vacate the contempt finding but affirm its alternative finding of breach of the MSA and the award of damages. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded prejudgment interest to Kim or when it awarded Kim attorney fees and costs. Further, we find that the trial court was not modifying the terms of the MSA, but merely enforcing the terms of the MSA, when it calculated the amount due to Kim by using the 2008 contract price instead of the 2012 price. ¶ 65 Affirmed in part and vacated in part.