In re Marriage of Tantiwongse

Decision Date16 March 2007
Docket NumberNo. 3-05-0287.,3-05-0287.
Citation863 N.E.2d 1188
PartiesIn re MARRIAGE OF Sarmpop TANTIWONGSE, Petitioner, and Martha Tantiwongse, Respondent-Appellant, v. Law Offices of Edward R. Jaquays, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Martha Tantiwongse, Appellant pro se.

Victoria McKay Kennison, Law Office of Edward R. Jaquays, Joliet, for Edward R. Jaquays.

Presiding Justice LYTTON delivered the opinion of the court:

The Law Offices of Edward R. Jaquays law firm (Jaquays) sought attorney fees from its former client, Martha Tantiwongse. The trial court accepted a stipulation requiring Martha to pay Jaquays $5,100 for the work it performed on Martha's behalf. The trial court also ordered Martha to pay Jaquays $2,353 for attorney fees Jaquays incurred collecting the fees Martha owed. Martha appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by (1) accepting the stipulation, and (2) ordering her to pay Jaquays attorney fees for collecting from her. We affirm the order allowing the stipulated fees but reverse the court's order requiring Martha to pay Jaquays attorney fees for collection.

In September 2000, Martha retained Jaquays to represent her in a marriage dissolution action. The primary attorneys working on her case were Edward Jaquays and Victoria McKay Kennison. Martha signed a retainer agreement with Jaquays, requiring her to pay interest at the rate of one percent per month and twelve percent per year for any amounts she did not pay within fifteen days of being billed. Section seven of the retainer agreement set forth additional consequences of Martha's failure to pay:

"In the event of default of payment of attorney's fees and costs due, and it becomes necessary to institute suit to enforce payment of outstanding attorney's fees, then client agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorney's fees to be billed at the hourly rate hereinabove specified."

Jaquays represented Martha in her dissolution action for six months. In March 2001, Jaquays filed a motion to withdraw and a petition for attorney fees, seeking $8,403.94 in legal fees. The trial court granted Jaquays leave to withdraw and subsequently entered an order granting Jaquays all of its fees. Martha filed a motion to vacate the order, arguing that she was not present to contest Jaquays' fee petition because she had been directed to the wrong courtroom. The trial court vacated the judgment. In September 2002, Jaquays filed an amended petition for fees, seeking $11,004.95 in legal fees and interest from Martha.

In April 2004, the parties entered in a stipulation in which Martha and Jaquays agreed that Martha owed Jaquays $5,100 for legal services and expenses as of May 30, 2001. Both parties also agreed to submit the following unresolved issues to the court for final determination: (1) what amount of interest, if any, Martha should pay on the $5,100; (2) what amount, if any, Martha should pay Jaquays for attorney fees and costs incurred in collecting its fees; and (3) what amount, if any, Martha should pay for interest on attorney fees incurred for collection. Martha was represented by an attorney, David Epstein, when she agreed to and signed the stipulation.

Thereafter, Jaquays filed a supplemental petition for final adjudication of attorney fees. In that petition, Jaquays requested interest at the rate of one percent per month or twelve percent per year from May 30, 2001 until the date Martha paid Jaquays $5,100. Jaquays also requested $7,426.75, plus interest, for attorney fees it incurred in collecting Martha's fees. According to the itemized billings attached to the petition, Edward Jaquays and Victoria McKay Kennison performed all of the work to collect the fees Martha owed. In response to Jaquays' petition, Martha disputed Jaquays' collection costs and interest but did not contest the terms of the stipulation or dispute that she owed Jaquays $5,100.

The trial court ruled that Martha was required to pay one percent interest per month from the date of the stipulation to the date she paid Jaquays $5,100. The court further ordered Martha to pay Jaquays $2,353 in attorney fees for collecting the amounts she owed. The court denied Jaquays' request for interest on those fees. Martha filed a motion to reconsider. Several months later, she filed a motion to vacate the stipulation. The trial court denied both motions.

I. STIPULATION

Martha argues that the trial court should not have enforced the stipulation agreement because it was the result of Jaquays' excessive billing and, thus, vitiated by fraud and contrary to public policy.

Illinois courts favor stipulations that are designed to simplify, shorten, or settle litigation and save costs for the parties. In re Marriage of Ealy, 269 Ill. App.3d 971, 207 Ill.Dec. 345, 647 N.E.2d 307 (1995). A court may reject an otherwise valid stipulation only if it is fraudulent, unreasonable, or in violation of public policy. Opper v. Brotz, 277 Ill.App.3d 1024, 214 Ill.Dec. 714, 661 N.E.2d 1159 (1996). A court will not relieve parties from a stipulation in the absence of a clear showing that the matter stipulated to is untrue, and then only when an objection is seasonably made. See In re Estate of Moss, 109 Ill.App.2d 185, 248 N.E.2d 513 (1969). A trial court's decision to accept a stipulation will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. See Bloome v. Wiseman, Shaikewitz, McGivern, Wahl, Flavin & Hesi, P.C., 279 Ill.App.3d 469, 216 Ill.Dec. 197, 664 N.E.2d 1125 (1996).

Here, Martha has offered nothing which rises to the level of manifest abuse. While represented by counsel, Martha voluntarily signed the stipulation agreement, admitting that she owed Jaquays $5,100. Although Martha now argues that fraud vitiated the stipulation, nothing in the record indicates that the stipulation was fraudulent, unreasonable, or violated public policy. Despite Martha's claim that Jaquays' billings were excessive, we find no evidence that Jaquays committed fraud or violated public policy in billing her for the legal services it provided. The stipulation required Martha to pay $5,100,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • McCarthy v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 20 de junho de 2019
    ...pro se are not entitled to recover attorney fees cited with approval in dissolution action); In re Marriage of Tantiwongse , 371 Ill. App. 3d 1161, 1164, 309 Ill.Dec. 291, 863 N.E.2d 1188 (2007) (law firm not entitled to an award of attorney fees for work done by its own lawyers in collecti......
  • People ex rel. Schad v. My Pillow, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 15 de junho de 2017
    ...fees performed by two of that law firm's member lawyers, Mr. Jacquays and Ms. Kennison. In re Marriage of Tantiwongse , 371 Ill.App.3d 1161, 1164–65, 309 Ill.Dec. 291, 863 N.E.2d 1188 (2007). Without distinguishing between plaintiff-law firms and individual plaintiff-lawyers, the court simp......
  • Timothy Whelan Law Associates v. Kruppe
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 31 de março de 2011
    ...Accordingly, at least to the extent that plaintiff is represented by outside counsel (see In re Marriage of Tantiwongse, 371 Ill.App.3d 1161, 1164–65, 309 Ill.Dec. 291, 863 N.E.2d 1188 (2007) (holding that attorneys do not incur fees when they represent themselves)), we perceive no per se p......
  • Uptown People's Law Ctr. v. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 27 de fevereiro de 2014
    ...to spend additional funds specifically for the purpose of pursuing FOIA requests. See In re Marriage of Tantiwongse, 371 Ill.App.3d 1161, 1164–65, 309 Ill.Dec. 291, 863 N.E.2d 1188 (2007) (attorneys in a law firm representing themselves in a collection action against a client incurred no le......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT