In Maynard v. Parker, 54 Ill. App. 3d 141, 143, 369 N.E.2d 352, 11 Ill. Dec. 898 (1977), the supreme court made a distinction between the subrogor/subrogee relationship and the debtor/creditor relationship on the basis that in the subrogation context there is a direct relationship between the obligation to pay and the creation of the fund, whereas in the debtor/creditor context the obligation to pay exists independently of the creation of the fund. The debtor is obligated to pay even without the creation of the fund, whereas the subrogor is obligated to pay only if and to the extent the fund is created. Thus, in a subrogation context, the benefit to the subrogee is a direct benefit from the creation of the fund, whereas in the debtor/creditor context, the benefit to the creditor from the creation of the fund is merely incidental. As the appellate court explained in Maynard, 54 Ill. App. 3d at 145, "The benefit to the hospital resulting from the attorney's services was merely incidental to the primary purpose of obtaining compensation for plaintiff's injuries."