In re Marriage of Schroeder

In re Marriage of Schroeder, 2024 IL App (1st) 231384‑U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Holly L. Schroeder; Christopher C. Schroeder (respondent/appellee) v. James Goldberg (appellant; former counsel to petitioner Holly Schroeder). 2024 IL App (1st) 231384‑U (Order filed Sept. 30, 2024) (Rule 23).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a circuit court properly awarded attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) where counsel (Goldberg) failed to comply with a subpoena and a subsequent court order to produce billing statements and related payment information in a pending dissolution fee petition.
- Whether §508(b) requires a finding of contempt or violation of a “court order or judgment” (versus mere noncompliance with a subpoena) before awarding fees.

3. Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the circuit court’s fee award (reduced by counsel’s stipulation) requiring Goldberg to pay $6,304 to Christopher for costs and attorney fees incurred enforcing the December 19, 2022 court order.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory construction: The court applied plain‑language interpretation of §508(b), which mandates that when a court finds failure to comply with an order or judgment without compelling cause, the non‑complying party must pay the prevailing party’s costs and reasonable fees. The statute also creates a presumption that discovery noncompliance lacks justification (rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence).
- Factual/legal nexus: Although Goldberg argued the issue was merely a subpoena violation and not an order, the court had entered a December 19, 2022 written order finding him in indirect civil contempt and directing production of “all billing statements attributable to this action” as a purge. Goldberg’s later failure to satisfy that order furnished the statutory basis for §508(b) relief.
- The court found it appropriate to include fees incurred litigating compliance (petitions for rule to show cause) in the award; the fee amount was reduced by agreement of counsel before entry.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Timely comply with discovery subpoenas or promptly move to quash/limit them; redaction of sensitive material (rather than nonproduction) may avoid sanctions.
- A counsel’s refusal or delay in producing billing/payment information in pending fee disputes can trigger contempt and §508(b) sanctions (including fees for enforcement litigation).
- The §508(b) discovery presumption disfavors noncompliance; rebuttal requires clear and convincing evidence.
- Preserve the record of communications, production attempts, and any agreed accommodations (extensions, affidavits) to defend against fee motions.
- Note: This is a Rule 23 (nonprecedential) appellate order.