In re Marriage of Holms, 2021 IL App (2d) 200493-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Holms, 2021 IL App (2d) 200493‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Mar. 23, 2021) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Tracy Batdorf (administrator of the Estate of Catherine A. Holms, deceased).
- Respondent‑Appellee: James H. Holms (surviving spouse).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying a petition for indirect civil contempt/rule to show cause based on James’s probate filing asserting spousal/heir status contrary to a pre‑existing property settlement agreement (PSA) incorporated into a judgment for legal separation.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/5‑508(a) and (b) for costs incurred enforcing the PSA in probate litigation.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of (a) the contempt petition and (b) statutory attorney fees. (Order under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) — non‑precedential except as allowed by Rule 23.)

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Civil contempt (indirect) is remedial/coercive and requires the contemnor have the ability to purge by future compliance. Past acts that cannot be undone (here, the filing of a probate petition) are not subject to civil contempt. Citing controlling principles (e.g., Felzak, Pryweller, Luttrell, Betts), the court found no basis for civil contempt because James’s allegedly wrongful act was completed and not purgeable.
- Section 5‑508 of the Dissolution Act can authorize fees for enforcement of dissolution orders even in collateral proceedings, but an award under 5‑508(b) requires a finding that noncompliance was without compelling cause/justification. The trial court found James had a colorable (arguable) claim of spousal/heir status when he filed probate; therefore his conduct did not amount to malfeasance or unjustified failure to comply warranting fee shifting. The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and found none.

5. Practice implications
- Draft PSAs with explicit, unambiguous language addressing death and intestate/spousal inheritance (express waiver of statutory spousal share/intestate succession and survivorship language) to avoid collateral probate disputes.
- If a party files probate or other collateral litigation based on a colorable theory, contempt is unlikely (past/purgeability issue) and fee relief under §5‑508(b) will usually require a showing of unjustified noncompliance or bad faith.
- Consider declaratory relief or injunctions in family court (before collateral filings) where there is ongoing or threatened noncompliance; pursue fee awards under §5‑508 but be prepared to show lack of any colorable claim or compelling justification for the opposing party’s conduct.
- Note: this decision is a Rule 23 order and is non‑precedential except as provided by that Rule.