Nottage v. Jeka

Citation667 N.E.2d 91,172 Ill.2d 386,217 Ill.Dec. 298
Decision Date31 May 1996
Docket NumberNo. 79861,79861
Parties, 217 Ill.Dec. 298 Rosaire M. NOTTAGE, d/b/a Nottage & Ward, Appellant, v. Richard F. JEKA, Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

Page 91

667 N.E.2d 91
172 Ill.2d 386, 217 Ill.Dec. 298
Rosaire M. NOTTAGE, d/b/a Nottage & Ward, Appellant,
v.
Richard F. JEKA, Appellee.
No. 79861.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
May 31, 1996.

[172 Ill.2d 387] Grund & Starkof, Chicago (David I. Grund and Richard S. Zachary, of counsel), for appellant.

William F. White, of White & White, Downers Grove, for appellee.

William Ferguson and Martha Norman, Wheaton, for amicus curiae Du Page County Bar Association.

[172 Ill.2d 388] Terrence K. Hegarty, Dennis A. Rendleman, Athena T. Taite, David P. Pasulka and Michael A. Metoyer, Springfield, for amicus curiae Illinois State Bar Association.

Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Rosaire M. Nottage, an attorney, d/b/a Nottage & Ward, filed an action in the circuit court of Cook County seeking recovery of attorney fees from defendant, Richard F. Jeka. The firm of Nottage & Ward had represented Jeka in post-decree proceedings following the dissolution of Jeka's marriage, and Nottage brought the instant action to recover compensation from Jeka for work performed in the course of those proceedings

Page 92

[217 Ill.Dec. 299] by Nottage and other attorneys in the firm. Following a bench trial, the judge found in Nottage's favor. Jeka appealed. The appellate court vacated the circuit court judgment and dismissed the action, concluding that Nottage could not maintain the present common law action because section 508 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/508 (West (1992)) provides the sole recourse for the recovery of attorney fees in domestic relations matters. 274 Ill.App.3d 235, 210 Ill.Dec. 608, 653 N.E.2d 803. We allowed Nottage's petition for leave to appeal (155 Ill.2d R. 315(a)).

The procedural history of this case can be stated briefly. Nottage filed the present action in the circuit court of Cook County on July 1, 1993. In her complaint, she alleged that her firm, Nottage & Ward, and Jeka had entered into a retainer agreement for legal services on April 3, 1989, that she and her firm had performed their obligations under the contract, and that Jeka owed a balance of $4,238.72 in attorney fees. Attached to the complaint were copies of the signed retainer agreement and of the billing documentation prepared by the Nottage firm. The retainer agreement recited that it was [172 Ill.2d 389] for representation of Jeka in certain post-decree matters in the circuit court of Du Page County. It appears that the firm withdrew from representation while the matter was still pending, and substitute counsel was then obtained. The record does not disclose the resolution of the Du Page County matter.

Jeka moved to dismiss the complaint. He first argued that the action was barred by an identical and pending claim filed by Nottage in the circuit court of Du Page County, where the post-decree proceedings had occurred. Jeka separately argued that, because the Du Page County matter remained pending, the Du Page court alone could exercise jurisdiction over the petition for fees. Finally, Jeka contended that the action was being brought in an inconvenient forum and asked that the cause be transferred to the circuit court of Du Page County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The trial judge refused to dismiss the action. In a subsequent answer to the complaint, Jeka denied that he owed Nottage & Ward anything for their work and raised, as an affirmative defense, the contention that he had already paid the Nottage firm a total of $10,514 in fees, an amount that he believed was full and reasonable compensation for the lawyers' services. Jeka filed a request for a jury trial together with his answer to the complaint.

The trial judge, on his own motion, struck Jeka's jury demand. Following a bench trial, the court ruled in Nottage's favor on the claim and awarded $4,009.72 in damages, plus costs. No report of proceedings, bystander's report, or agreed statement of facts is included in the record on appeal; a written order, however, states that the judge found the rates charged by the Nottage firm to be reasonable and the bulk of the hours billed to the client to be properly established. The difference between the amount sought by Nottage and the amount [172 Ill.2d 390] awarded by the trial judge apparently reflects the judge's disallowance of compensation for hours not properly established by the attorney.

Jeka appealed, and the appellate court vacated the circuit court judgment and dismissed Nottage's action. The court concluded that section 508 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act was designed by the legislature to provide the sole means by which an attorney may recover a fee from a client for representation in a proceeding under the Act, and that any request for fees must therefore be maintained with the underlying domestic relations matter. Because the present action was not being prosecuted under section 508, the appellate court ruled that it must be dismissed.

In support of this holding, the appellate court pointed to a number of considerations that, it believed, demonstrated the legislature's intent to make section 508 an attorney's exclusive mode of recovery of fees in domestic relations matters. The appellate court observed that section 508, unlike a common law contract action, permits the allocation of attorney fees between spouses, so...

To continue reading

Request your trial
97 cases
  • Sorce v. Naperville Jeep Eagle, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 17 Diciembre 1999
    ... ... In upholding this duty, we first look to the express language, as it is usually the best indicator of legislative intent. Nottage v. Jeka, 172 Ill.2d 386, 392, 217 Ill.Dec. 298, 667 N.E.2d 91 (1996) ... Statutory language that is clear and unambiguous requires that we not resort ... ...
  • Chicago Title and Trust Co. v. Brescia
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 27 Noviembre 1996
    ... ... In construing a statutory provision, the primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Nottage v. Jeka, 172 Ill.2d 386, 392, 217 Ill.Dec. 298, 667 N.E.2d 91 (1996); Harvel v. City of Johnston City, 146 Ill.2d 277, 282, 166 Ill.Dec. 888, 586 ... ...
  • Michigan Ave. Nat. Bank v. County of Cook
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 15 Junio 2000
    ... ... Nottage v. Jeka, 172 Ill.2d 386, 392, 217 Ill.Dec. 298, 667 N.E.2d 91 (1996) ... The statutory language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and, ... ...
  • Wildman, Harrold, Allen and Dixon v. Gaylord
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 20 Noviembre 2000
    ... ... Nevertheless, compensation due an attorney pursuant to an express contract must still satisfy certain professional standards. See Nottage v. Jeka, 172 Ill.2d 386, 397, 217 Ill.Dec. 298, 667 N.E.2d 91 (1996) ... Rule 1.5 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct requires that all fees ... ...
  • 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