In re Marriage of Crecos, 183 N.E.3d 67

Background

Diana and Gregory Crecos divorced by final judgment in 2009; that judgment was affirmed on appeal in 2012, and subsequent postdissolution litigation continued.
Diana sought attorney fees for work on two appeals (Crecos I and Crecos II); the trial court awarded $32,952.50 and $89,465.50, and included an express Rule 304(a) finding that there was no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal.
Gregory appealed the fee award, arguing the trial court should not have awarded all the fees; the appellate court sua sponte raised jurisdictional questions.
The appellate court treated the September 2018 fee order as an interim award under 750 ILCS 5/501(c-1) (thus nonfinal and not appealable) and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave, held that 501(c-1) does not apply to postdissolution fee petitions, ruled the fee award was final and appealable (the trial court had entered Rule 304(a) language), reversed the appellate dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Diana)	Defendant's Argument (Gregory)	Held
Does section 501(c-1) governing "interim" awards apply to these postdissolution fee petitions?	501(c-1) is inapplicable to postdissolution petitions (statutory amendment limits subsection to prejudgment cases).	Same (parties agreed rule should not apply here).	501(c-1) does not apply to postdissolution fee petitions; Oleksy (2003) is inapplicable here.
Was the September 17, 2018 fee award an "interim" award (nonfinal) or a final award subject to immediate appeal?	Final: fees were for completed appeals, not temporary or subject to later adjustment.	Final and appealable; trial court included Rule 304(a) finding.	The award was final, not interim; it was appealable because it resolved fees for already-completed appeals and the trial court made the required Rule 304(a) finding.
For Rule 304(a) purposes, are unrelated postdissolution matters separate claims or separate actions (i.e., when is a partial postdissolution decision appealable)?	The fee order was appealable because the trial court made a Rule 304(a) finding; postdissolution matters should be treated as separate claims requiring 304(a) if fewer than all are resolved.	Gregory joined that view on jurisdiction (both parties urged appellate review); more generally, the parties urged appealability here.	Unrelated postdissolution matters are separate claims for appellate-jurisdiction purposes; a final order disposing of one such claim requires a Rule 304(a) finding to be immediately appealable — because the trial court included that finding, the appellate court had jurisdiction.

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Leopando, 96 Ill. 2d 114 (1983) (predissolution issues are interrelated and constitute a single claim; fewer-than-all resolution not appealable under Rule 304(a))
In re Custody of Purdy, 112 Ill. 2d 1 (1986) (postdissolution petitions may be treated as separate claims; an order on such a petition can be final and appealable)
In re Marriage of Kozloff, 101 Ill. 2d 526 (1984) (postdissolution petitions are continuations of the dissolution proceeding for venue purposes)
Marsh v. Evangelical Covenant Church of Hinsdale, 138 Ill. 2d 458 (1990) (an order resolving fewer-than-all claims is not immediately appealable absent Rule 304(a))
In re Marriage of Gutman, 232 Ill. 2d 145 (2008) (a pending contempt petition that imposes no penalty is not a separate, final claim; Rule 304(a) required)
In re Marriage of Derning, 117 Ill. App. 3d 620 (1983) (attorney-fee orders in dissolution contexts are often intertwined with property/support issues and may be nonseparable)
In re Marriage of Carr, 323 Ill. App. 3d 481 (2001) (First District view that unrelated postdissolution matters can be separate and appealable without a 304(a) finding)
In re Marriage of Alyassir, 335 Ill. App. 3d 998 (2003) (Second District requiring Rule 304(a) when fewer-than-all claims in a petition are resolved)
In re Marriage of Duggan, 376 Ill. App. 3d 725 (2007) (harmonizes Leopando/Kozloff/Purdy and treats postdissolution matters as claims within the dissolution action requiring 304(a) for piecemeal appeals)
In re Marriage of Oleksy, 337 Ill. App. 3d 946 (2003) (applied 501(c-1) to interim fee awards prior to the statute's 2010 amendment)