In re Marriage of Speraneo, 2024 IL App (5th) 220610-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Speraneo, 2024 IL App (5th) 220610-U (5th Dist. Apr. 29, 2024).
- Parties: Petitioner Andrew Speraneo; Respondent‑Appellant Jessica Powless (f/k/a Jessica Speraneo). Movant‑Appellee: attorney Wilson of Hunn Law Group, P.C. (also identified with Patrick Hunn).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court may award attorney fees to counsel who has not filed a motion to withdraw or obtained leave to withdraw as counsel of record in the dissolution case (750 ILCS 5/508(c)).
- Timeliness of objections under a local “proposed order” rule and mandatory e‑filing rules.
- Sufficiency of fee petition filings (engagement agreement, itemized billing, affidavit).

3. Holding / outcome
- Reversed and remanded. The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by entering an order awarding Wilson attorney fees where Wilson had not filed a motion for leave to withdraw nor been granted leave to withdraw before seeking fees under §508(c). The court also found the trial court erred in treating opposing counsel’s e‑filed objection as untimely based on clerk office hours.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory requirement: §508(c)(1) of the IMDMA bars a counsel of record from filing a petition for fees against a client unless the counsel previously filed for or was granted leave to withdraw. The court emphasized that the requirement is mandatory and Wilson’s failure to file/obtain leave rendered the fee petition improper.
- Procedural timeliness: local Rule 1.12 allows five working days to object to a proposed order, but mandatory e‑filing rules (Ill. S. Ct. R. 9(d)) treat submissions before midnight in the court’s time zone as timely. The court found the respondent’s objection, e‑filed within that window, was timely despite being uploaded after clerk office hours.
- Fee documentation: trial court noted deficiencies (no detailed time entries) in movant’s submission, and the appellate opinion referenced the requirement to support fee petitions with adequate documentation and engagement agreement per precedent and §508(c)(2).

5. Practice implications
- Before filing a fee petition against a client in a pending dissolution case, counsel must first move for (and obtain) leave to withdraw or otherwise comply strictly with §508(c); failure to do so risks reversal.
- Fee petitions should attach the written engagement agreement, affidavit, and detailed time/billing records to satisfy §508(c)(2) and relevant case law.
- Do not rely on local clerks’ office hours to defeat e‑filed objections — timely e‑filing (before midnight) controls under Rule 9(d).
- When tendering proposed orders under local rules, allow for and respect the objection window; opposing counsel should e‑file any objection within the applicable period to preserve contest.