In Re Marriage of Radzik and Agrella, 955 N.E.2d 591

In re Marriage of Radzik and Agrella, 955 N.E.2d 591 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Magdalena Radzik (petitioner) and Christopher J. Agrella (respondent), 955 N.E.2d 591 (2d Dist. Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 8, 2011).

2) Key legal issues
- Proper procedure and evidentiary basis for interim attorney-fee awards under 750 ILCS 5/501(c‑1).
- Whether a trial court may order liquidation/distribution of a party’s IRA to satisfy an interim fee award.
- Whether a contempt adjudication based on nonpayment of an interim fee award was appropriate where the payor asserted inability to pay and contested the award’s procedural sufficiency.
- Adequacy of notice/process when an ex parte rule to show cause issued.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court concluded the trial court erred in awarding $32,000 in interim fees on November 6, 2009.
- The court held the trial court may not order, as a mechanism to satisfy an interim fee award, the liquidation/distribution of respondent’s IRA.
- The contempt finding based on nonpayment was vacated.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Section 501(c‑1) requires a summary, expeditious hearing, but it does not permit fee awards when the petition lacks required verification or adequate factual support and when disputed facts are not resolved by an evidentiary process. Here petitioner’s second fee petition lacked verification and a current financial affidavit; contested factual assertions (petitioner’s and respondent’s incomes, assets and ability to pay) were not resolved by an evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court relied on speculation and statements in the record rather than admissible proof to conclude respondent had funds immediately available. Where a defendant credibly asserts inability to pay and the record shows disputed facts, imposing a contempt sanction is improper.
- The court emphasized that an IRA is not simply interchangeable with cash: forced liquidation/distribution has tax/penalty and characterization consequences and cannot be ordered as a routine method to satisfy interim fees without proper findings and consideration of those consequences and applicable protections.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- For fee applicants: strictly comply with statutory and local requirements — attach and verify financial affidavits, itemize billing, and support assertions of inability to pay by admissible proof.
- For fee opponents: timely demand an evidentiary hearing and preserve evidence of inability to pay; object to satisfying awards by forced liquidation of retirement assets and highlight tax/penalty consequences.
- For judges: do not enter significant interim-fee awards or hold contempts on contested claims without appropriate verification or an evidentiary opportunity; carefully evaluate retirement accounts before ordering liquidation/distribution to satisfy interim obligations.