In re Marriage of Goesel, 2017 IL 122046

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Goesel, 2017 IL 122046. Petitioner/Appellant: Christine Goesel. Respondent/Appellee/Contemnor: Laura Holwell (counsel for Andrew Goesel).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether fees already earned by an attorney constitute “available funds” under 750 ILCS 5/501(c-1)(3) (the “leveling of the playing field” provision) and therefore may be disgorged to equalize interim attorney-fee expenditures.
2) Whether contempt sanctions against an attorney who did not turn over fees already earned were proper (procedural issue largely forfeited in this appeal).

- Holding / outcome
The Illinois Supreme Court held that fees already earned by counsel are not “available funds” subject to disgorgement under section 501(c-1)(3). The appellate court’s disgorgement order (and the related contempt finding) was reversed on that basis.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The dispute required statutory construction of “available funds” in section 501(c-1)(3). The Court applied ordinary rules of statutory interpretation, focusing on the text and legislative purpose of the 1997 “leveling” amendments. It aligned with prior appellate precedent (In re Marriage of Altman) rejecting a broad reading that “available” simply meant any funds “exist[ing] somewhere” (as adopted in In re Marriage of Squire). The Court concluded that the statute contemplates allocation of retainers or interim payments that remain unearned/available to be reallocated to achieve parity, not disgorgement of compensation already earned by counsel for services performed. Because the parties had stipulated the contested fees were reasonable and for services already rendered, the trial court erred in ordering disgorgement and punishing the attorney for nonpayment. The Court confined its review to the statutory question and declined to resolve other disputed factual findings that were either forfeited or unnecessary to its ruling.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Trial courts should limit disgorgement under 501(c-1)(3) to unearned retainers or interim payments, not to fees already earned by counsel.
- Attorneys should document when fees are earned (invoices, work performed) to protect against disgorgement attempts; earned fees are the attorney’s property.
- Parties seeking fee parity should use the statutory interim-award mechanism (show opponent’s ability to pay and petitioner’s lack of access) rather than seeking disgorgement of opposing counsel’s earned compensation.
- Courts must make clear findings regarding (a) whether funds are “available” and unearned, and (b) the statutory requisites for an interim award; contempt sanctions are inappropriate where fees are already earned and thus not subject to statutory disgorgement.