In re Marriage of Mercier
Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 6/30/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary:
<h3>Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 241075</h3>
<strong>Case Number:</strong> 1-24-1075 <br>
<strong>Date Filed:</strong> June 30, 2025 <br>
<strong>Court:</strong> Appellate Court of Illinois, First...
Full Case Summary
Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 241075
Case Number: 1-24-1075Date Filed: June 30, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Division: Third Division
Parties Involved
Petitioner-Appellant: Ljiljana MercierRespondent-Appellee: Mark Mercier
Originating Court: Circuit Court of Cook County, Case Number: 17 D 330844
Presiding Judge: Honorable Michael Forti
Case Background
A judgment for dissolution of marriage between Mark Mercier and Ljiljana Mercier was entered on September 19, 2019, with a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) specifying that Ljiljana's pension was her sole property until January 1, 2022, after which Mark would receive 50% of the payments, confirmed by a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) on January 3, 2022. Mark filed a motion on June 7, 2022, to enforce this order due to non-payment, leading to ongoing disputes.Legal Proceedings
Lily's failure to respond to Mark's motions within deadlines resulted in a default request by Mark in September 2022. Lily later attempted to transfer the case, which was dismissed by the court during hearings on June 16, 2023, where the interpretation of the MSA was confirmed in Mark's favor. Subsequent court orders mandated compliance from Lily, which she repeatedly failed to meet, prompting Mark to seek attorney fees under section 508(b) of the Marriage Act.Judgment and Sanctions
The appellate court upheld the trial court's sanction of $25,000 against Ljiljana for prolonging the litigation unnecessarily and failing to comply with lawful orders. Ljiljana argued that her actions were justified and that Mark's claims were unfounded. However, the court noted her actions had continually delayed proceedings, referencing her unsuccessful attempts to introduce new arguments regarding undisclosed assets and payments.Appeal Findings
Lily appealed the trial court’s decision regarding the attorney fees, arguing the trial court had erred by not conducting a formal evidentiary hearing on Mark's fee petition. The appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, affirming the award as reasonable given the circumstances. Lily’s arguments, including contentions about the reasonableness of Mark’s fees, were deemed forfeited as they were not effectively raised during the initial trial.Conclusion
Ultimately, the Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, confirming Mark was entitled to the awarded attorney fees under section 508(b), justified by Lily's conduct throughout the litigation process.Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Mercier? Ask our AI assistant below.