In re Marriage of Stoltman

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Stoltman, 2025 IL App (3d) 240687 (Nov. 7, 2025). Petitioner-appellant: James E. Stoltman Jr.; Respondent: Darice C. Lesure; third-party claimant/appellee: law firm Sethna & Cook, P.C. (S&C).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether a law firm may pursue a petition for fees and costs under section 508(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/508(c) (West 2024)) where representation was based on an oral (nonwritten) engagement.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the client’s motion to dismiss and sending the dispute to arbitration under local rules, resulting in an arbitration award and judgment without the statutorily required written engagement agreement.

- Holding / outcome
The Third District reversed in part and vacated in part: it held section 508(c) requires a written engagement agreement (attached to an affidavit) before a fee petition under that section may proceed. Because S&C’s petition was based on an oral agreement, the trial court erred in denying Stoltman’s motion to dismiss and in entering judgment on the arbitration award ($16,511). The arbitration award was vacated.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court applied standard principles of statutory construction: give effect to the plain language and legislative intent. Section 508(c)(2) expressly conditions a final hearing on (i) a written engagement agreement entered at retention (or soon after) and (ii) attaching that agreement to an affidavit filed with the petition. The panel adopted and followed In re Marriage of Pavlovich, 2019 IL App (1st) 180783, concluding Pavlovich controls: the statute requires a written contract even where quantum meruit principles are later used to measure fees not determined by contract. Quantum meruit/ unjust enrichment remain available only in a separate common-law action when no written engagement exists; section 508 does not supplant that requirement. The court reviewed denial of dismissal de novo (discussing 2-615/2-619 grounds) and found the statutory defect was fatal.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys and litigators
- Do not invoke section 508(c) to collect fees/costs unless you have the written engagement agreement and comply with the statute (attach agreement and affidavit).
- If no written fee agreement exists, pursue a separate common-law claim (quantum meruit/unjust enrichment) in ordinary civil proceedings rather than a 508(c) petition.
- Clients should move to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615 or 2-619 when a 508(c) petition lacks the required written agreement; appellate courts review such dismissals de novo.
- Be cautious about procedural choices (opting out of ADR, arbitration/local-rule consequences); failing to meet statutory prerequisites cannot be cured by arbitration or local practice.