In re Marriage of Miklowicz, 2022 IL App (2d) 210713

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Miklowicz, 2022 IL App (2d) 210713 (2d Dist. Aug. 4, 2022). Petitioner‑Appellee: Sebastian Miklowicz. Respondent‑Appellant: Beata Urszula Miklowicz. Appeal from Du Page County (No. 2019‑D‑861; Judge Maureen R. Dunsing). Judgment affirmed.

- Key legal issues
Whether a party who successfully defends a criminal prosecution for alleged violation of a dissolution judgment may recover attorney fees under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA): (1) §508(a)(1) — fees for the “maintenance or defense of any proceeding under [the] Act”; and (2) §508(a)(6) — fees for “ancillary litigation incident to, or reasonably connected with, a proceeding under this Act.”

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the fee petition. Neither §508(a)(1) nor §508(a)(6) authorized shifting of fees incurred defending an independent criminal prosecution.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
• §508(a)(1): The court read “proceeding under [the] Act” literally. A criminal prosecution is brought under the Criminal Code, not the IMDMA, so §508(a)(1) does not apply.
• §508(a)(6): The term “ancillary litigation” was construed in context. The panel concluded a state criminal prosecution is not “ancillary” to a civil dissolution/post‑dissolution matter because it is an independent sovereign action (different forum, judge, burden of proof, and punitive purpose). Reliance on dictionary definitions and out‑of‑state authority supported treating criminal prosecutions as separate rather than subordinate enforcement mechanisms.
• Policy considerations: allowing fee recovery here could deter parties from making good‑faith reports to law enforcement (chilling effect) and would improperly penalize a private party for initiating a criminal complaint that the State later prosecutes or drops.

The court distinguished cases relied on by respondent (Nienhouse, Davis, Kent) as involving civil enforcement or child‑representative fees, not defense of a government‑initiated criminal prosecution.

- Practice implications for attorneys
• Clients cannot rely on IMDMA §508 to recoup fees incurred defending criminal charges alleging violation of a dissolution order.
• To seek fee shifting, pursue civil enforcement remedies (contempt, modification, ancillary civil claims) under the IMDMA where fee authority is clearer, and preserve the record tying litigation to the civil proceeding.
• Counsel should advise clients of the risk that reporting violations to police may not produce fee exposure for the complaining party if criminal charges follow; weigh civil enforcement first when fee recovery is an objective.
• If criminal prosecution is likely, coordinate civil strategy and consider contemporaneous civil motions asserting ancillary connection (though success is uncertain under Miklowicz).