In re Marriage of Altman, 2016 IL App (1st) 143076

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Altman, 2016 IL App (1st) 143076 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., July 27, 2016).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Heather Altman; Respondent-Appellee: Jeffrey Block; Contemnor-Appellant: Steven D. Gerage (former counsel to Block).

2) Key legal issues
- Under 750 ILCS 5/501(c-1) (interim “leveling of the playing field” attorney-fee provision): (a) may a spouse be required to liquidate a nonmarital retirement account to pay interim attorney fees; and (b) are fees already paid to a party’s lawyer “available” funds that a court may allocate/disgorge to pay the other party’s interim fees?
- Related procedural issue: whether contempt for failure to disgorge is reviewable and whether the underlying interim-fee order was properly entered.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court held (1) a spouse cannot be compelled to access a nonmarital retirement account to fund interim attorney fees under the circumstances presented; and (2) sums already paid to a law firm for past services are not “available” funds within the meaning of section 501(c-1)(3).
- The contempt order against Gerage for failing to disgorge $16,000 was reversed; the matter was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Statutory construction governed (de novo review). The court interpreted section 501(c-1) in light of legislative intent to equalize access to counsel but not to reach nonmarital assets or funds no longer within a party’s control.
- A nonmarital retirement account was treated as outside the pool the court may compel to satisfy interim fees where the account is nonmarital and accessible only to that spouse; compelling its use would improperly convert protected nonmarital property into marital funding for litigation.
- Fees already paid to opposing counsel were held not to be “available” under the statute because those funds were no longer in the paying party’s control; disgorgement of previously paid fees to third parties exceeded the statutory authority to allocate “available” resources and impermissibly impinged on contractual and property expectations without adequate basis.
- The court also noted interlocutory-nature principles: although interim-fee orders are not ordinarily appealable, contempt sanctions for violating them are final and reviewable, allowing as-applied challenges to the underlying allocation.

5) Practice implications for family-law practitioners
- When seeking interim fees under §501(c-1), focus on clearly demonstrable marital assets or income streams actually “available” to the other party; nonmarital assets are likely off-limits absent clear grounds to transmute or treat them as marital.
- Do not assume courts can compel disgorgement of fees already paid to opposing counsel; if pursuing disgorgement, preserve factual and legal bases showing those funds remain within the party’s control or were improperly shielded.
- When counsel is ordered to disgorge client-paid funds, anticipate an immediate, appealable contempt fight; ensure orders expressly identify source, ownership, and allocation of funds (and allocate all amounts) to avoid remandable defects.