In re Marriage of Spencer

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Spencer, 2025 IL App (4th) 250712-U (Dec. 12, 2025) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Aaron Justice Spencer. Respondent‑Appellee: Jessica Judith Diaz Lopez.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by incorporating an agreed provision in the marital settlement agreement (MSA) requiring petitioner to pay $3,500 of respondent’s attorney fees without a contemporaneous fee affidavit/time records.
- Whether petitioner adequately challenged or preserved a postjudgment attack on the fee clause (including an allegation that respondent’s counsel actually represented respondent pro bono via a legal aid agency).
- Procedural issue arising from appellee’s failure to file a brief (Talandis/First Capitol principles).

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held petitioner failed to show cause to vacate his acknowledged in‑court stipulation obligating him to pay $3,500 of respondent’s fees, and failed to effectively present a postjudgment motion challenging the MSA.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Agreed orders: The court emphasized that agreed orders incorporated into judgments are contractual in nature and generally binding on the parties; petitioner had expressly agreed in open court to the fee term, so authority requiring evidentiary support for fee awards (fee petitions/time records) was inapplicable. (Citing Draper & Kramer/Rolseth principles.)
- Procedural default: Petitioner’s postjudgment packet began with a “request for leave” but he never brought the motion to the court’s attention or obtained a hearing date; mere filing with the clerk is not an effective application (People v. Newman). Because the motion was not effectively made, the trial court had no duty to rule on it.
- Even if considered, petitioner’s speculative inference (PSLS declined to represent him → respondent’s counsel was actually pro bono via PSLS) lacked evidentiary support and would not justify vacatur.
- Appellate disposition followed Talandis/Thomas approach given absence of an appellee brief; record simple, issues decidable without appellee’s brief.

5) Practice implications
- Parties should understand agreed fee provisions incorporated into an MSA are binding; courts need not independently verify fee time entries when fees are contractually stipulated.
- To challenge an agreed order postjudgment, promptly file and properly present a motion (e.g., under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1301(e)) — mere filing with the clerk is insufficient; secure a hearing and bring it to the court’s attention.
- Allegations that counsel misrepresented fee arrangements require admissible evidence; speculative inferences (e.g., third‑party declination of representation) will not carry the motion.
- When settling, clients and counsel should memorialize retainer/funding arrangements on the record to avoid later collateral attacks.