Illinois Appellate Court

In re Marriage of Stoltman, 2025 IL App (3d) 240687

Written Agreement Required for Section 508(c) Petitions

November 7, 2025
Marriage
Quick Answer

Illinois courts require written engagement agreements before law firms can pursue fee petitions under section 508(c). The Third District reversed dismissal denial, holding oral agreements are insufficient. Family law attorneys must have written contracts or pursue separate common-law quantum meruit claims.

Citation: N/A Court: Illinois Appellate Court Date: November 7, 2025

Facts

Law firm Sethna & Cook represented client James Stoltman in family law matter based on oral engagement agreement. After representation, firm filed petition for $16,511 in fees under section 508(c). Trial court denied Stoltman's motion to dismiss and entered judgment on arbitration award.

Issue

Whether a law firm may pursue a petition for fees under section 508(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act where representation was based on an oral rather than written engagement agreement.

Holding

The Third District reversed in part and vacated the arbitration award, holding that section 508(c) requires a written engagement agreement attached to an affidavit before a fee petition may proceed. Oral agreements are insufficient to invoke this statutory remedy.

Key Reasoning

  • Court applied standard statutory construction principles, giving effect to plain language and legislative intent
  • Section 508(c)(2) expressly conditions final hearing on written engagement agreement entered at retention and attached to petition affidavit
  • Followed In re Marriage of Pavlovich precedent requiring written contracts even where quantum meruit principles measure fees
  • Applied de novo review standard for denial of dismissal motions under 2-615/2-619 grounds

Practical Impact

For Petitioners

Family law attorneys must secure written engagement agreements before representation and attach them to section 508(c) petitions, or pursue separate common-law quantum meruit claims

For Respondents

Clients should move to dismiss section 508(c) petitions lacking required written agreements under 2-615 or 2-619 motions

When This Applies

This applies only to section 508(c) statutory fee petitions; quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims remain available through separate common-law actions

Citation Network

This Case Cites

  • In re Marriage of Pavlovich
Full Opinion Download the official PDF

Facing a Similar Legal Issue?

Appellate decisions shape family law strategy. Ensure your approach aligns with the latest precedents.

Schedule a Strategy Session

Legal Assistant

Ask specific questions about this case's holding.

Disclaimer: This AI analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify any AI-generated content against the official court opinion.
Call Book