In re Marriage of Stoltman

Key Issues

Parties & posture: Sethna & Cook, P.C. (S&C), former counsel for James E. Stoltman Jr., filed a petition under 750 ILCS 5/508(c) seeking final attorney fees and costs, also pleading an oral retainer and alternative common‑law claims (quantum meruit/unjust enrichment). Stoltman moved to dismiss, arguing §508(c) permits fee petitions only when a written engagement agreement (attached to an affidavit) exists; the trial court denied dismissal, directed arbitration, an arbitrator awarded S&C $16,511, and the court entered judgment on that award. On appeal the court considered whether §508(c) may be invoked on the basis of an oral agreement and related procedural questions.

Holding

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of Stoltman’s motion to dismiss and vacated the judgment on the arbitration award insofar as S&C invoked §508(c). It held that §508(c) requires a written engagement agreement (and attendant filing prerequisites) to proceed under the statute; an oral agreement cannot support a §508(c) petition. Quantum meruit remains an available equitable remedy for services not covered by a written contract but, where no written agreement exists, recovery must proceed as a separate common‑law action, not under §508(c).

Reasoning

The court applied standard rules of statutory interpretation (plain meaning and context, not isolated terms) and followed In re Marriage of Pavlovich and related precedent: §508’s text and purpose create a streamlined statutory remedy only when a written agreement exists and is attached to an affidavit filed with the petition. Because S&C’s claim rested on an oral retainer, it failed the statute’s prerequisites and could not be litigated under §508(c). The court reviewed dismissal issues de novo (addressing both section 2‑615 and 2‑619(a)(9) frameworks) and noted procedural complications in the record—counsel’s on‑the‑record concession to arbitration, conflicting ADR opt‑out assertions, and local rules that can render Act arbitration awards final and binding—which influenced the practical relief but did not alter the statutory requirement.

Practice Impact

Essentials for practitioners: (1) Obtain and preserve written engagement agreements if you intend to invoke §508(c); attach the agreement to the required affidavit when filing. (2) If no written contract exists, pursue fee recovery as a separate common‑law quantum meruit action. (3) Raise statutory defects early (use both 2‑615 and 2‑619 defenses), preserve issues for appeal, and be wary that counsel’s in‑court concessions and local arbitration rules can irrevocably affect forum and finality. (4) Do not rely on an opponent’s failure to file an appellee brief; courts may decide uncomplicated appeals on the merits.