In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2017 IL App (2d) 160631

- Case: In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2017 IL App (2d) 160631
- Parties: Masud M. Arjmand (petitioner/appellant) v. Muneeza R. Arjmand (respondent/appellee)

Key legal issues
- Whether appellate jurisdiction exists to review interlocutory orders awarding interim attorney fees under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/501(c‑1), 508(a)).
- Whether a trial court may limit evidentiary proof in an interim-fee proceeding (to current economic circumstances rather than full valuation/marital‑vs‑nonmarital characterization).
- Whether an interim fee award may be enforced by garnishment/turnover before final resolution and whether allowing such enforcement renders the order appealable.

Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court concluded it lacked authority to review the interlocutory fee orders or the trial court’s turnover/garnishment order enforcing the interim award.

Significant legal reasoning
- Interim attorney‑fee awards in ongoing dissolution litigation are interlocutory and not independently appealable; piecemeal review is disallowed absent a final judgment disposing of all issues (citing the Act and precedents such as Leopando). Efforts to manufacture appealability (Rule 304(a) requests or “friendly contempt”) are not appropriate when the party merely disagrees with the award.
- The trial court appropriately applied the statutory purpose of section 501(c‑1): to “level the playing field” quickly so both sides can retain counsel and experts. To serve that purpose the court limited evidence to present economic circumstances (income, assets accessible for payment, expenditures) and declined to resolve full valuation and marital/nonmarital characterization of complex holdings in the interim‑fee context.
- Although section 508(a) allows an award to be paid directly to counsel and permits judgment and enforcement, enforcement (garnishment/turnover) at the trial level does not automatically create appellate jurisdiction over the underlying interlocutory fee determination.

Practice implications
- Interim‑fee motions: prepare focused proof on present ability to pay and current access to assets rather than full protracted valuation or marital characterization; expect courts to limit scope to avoid defeating the statute’s expeditious remedial purpose.
- Enforcement: prevailing counsel can seek entry of judgment and proceed with enforcement mechanisms (garnishment/turnover) at the trial level, but the losing party cannot ordinarily secure an immediate interlocutory appeal.
- Appeals strategy: litigants seeking review of interim fee awards should plan to await final judgment or pursue extraordinary writ relief where appropriate; avoid attempts to create appealability via Rule 304(a) or “friendly contempt.” Ensure preservation of record for review after final disposition.