2025 IL App (4th) 250712-U NOTICE FILED This Order was filed under December 12, 2025 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-25-0712 Carla Bender not precedent except in the th 4 District Appellate limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the AARON JUSTICE SPENCER, ) Circuit Court of Petitioner-Appellant, ) Henry County and ) No. 25DN12 JESSICA JUDITH DIAZ LOPEZ, ) Respondent-Appellee. ) Honorable ) Colby G. Hathaway, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Harris and Justice Lannerd concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, holding petitioner failed to establish a reason why it should vacate his acknowledged stipulation and agreement to pay $3,500 of respondent’s attorney fees.
¶2 The trial court entered an order dissolving the marriage of petitioner, Aaron Justice
Spencer, and respondent, Jessica Judith Diaz Lopez, on June 11, 2025. The judgment incorporated
a marital settlement agreement (MSA) providing, among other things, petitioner would pay $3,500
of respondent’s attorney fees, an amount to which petitioner agreed in open court. On appeal,
petitioner asserts the court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees in the absence of a
record of the time counsel spent on the case and asks us to vacate the MSA. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The parties married on January 8, 2025. On March 20, 2025, petitioner filed a pro se
petition for dissolution of marriage. He listed a car loan as the only marital debt. Alicia D. Gieck of the H.J. Dane Law Office entered her appearance for respondent on April 17, 2025. Respondent
filed an answer the same day, which said no marital debt existed. Gieck signed all of respondent’s
filings and appeared on respondent’s behalf.
¶5 On April 21, 2025, petitioner filed, among other things, “Petitioner’s Motion for
Entry of Partial Judgment on Contested Marital Debt.” This filing included exhibits documenting
the existence of the joint car loan.
¶6 On April 25, 2025, respondent filed an amended answer, in which she admitted the
debt existed.
¶7 On April 28, 2025, petitioner filed a group 11 of documents, which included
(1) “Petitioner’s Motion in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Amend Answer,”
(2) “Petitioner’s Motion to Preclude Trial on Issues of Indemnification or Liquidation of Vehicle
Asset,” and (3) “Petitioner’s Standing Objection to Future Amendments.” On April 30, 2025,
petitioner filed “Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Improper Amendments Contained in Respondent’s
Response and to Enter Partial Judgment.” On May 5, 2025, he filed “Petitioner’s Motion for Entry
of Final Judgment of Dissolution of Mariage.”
¶8 On May 19, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on petitioner’s filings. Petitioner
said he wanted an immediate final judgment. Respondent appeared through Gieck and offered to
take both the car and the associated debt. The court concluded too much confusion existed to enter
an order immediately and set a June 30, 2025, hearing date.
¶9 On June 2, 2025, respondent filed a “Motion for Temporary Relief Pursuant to 750
ILCS 5/501,” in which she asked the trial court to grant her interim attorney fees of $3,500.
Respondent stated she had given Gieck a $2,000 retainer, which, because of the apparent simplicity
of the case, Gieck expected would be sufficient to pay for respondent’s representation. However,
-2- because of the volume of petitioner’s filings, respondent owed Gieck $1,120. Respondent further
moved for sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court 137 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018) based on what she
asserted were petitioner’s meritless or false filings. “For example, on April 25, 2025, [petitioner]
filed a Motion to Strike or Clarify Respondent’s Answer to Question 11 of the Petition of
Dissolution. *** [However, the] response to Question 11 repeats—word for word—the language
in [the dissolution] Petition.” (Emphasis in original.)
¶ 10 On June 3 and 4, 2025, petitioner filed three more documents, including a “Motion
to Challenge and Oppose Respondent’s Motions for Temporary Relief and Sanctions.”
¶ 11 The trial court held a hearing to address petitioner’s filings on June 11, 2025. He
asked the court to consider his offer of a settlement, wherein he agreed to respondent’s disposition
of the car and further would agree to pay respondent’s attorney fees if he could do so over 120
days, with $500 to be paid immediately and additional payments to be made every 30 days.
Respondent accepted these terms.
¶ 12 The trial court allowed the parties to prove up the agreement on the spot. The court
swore in both parties as witnesses. Both parties agreed they had irreconcilable differences and
wished to have the marriage dissolved on the terms to which they had agreed. The court entered a
judgment of dissolution of marriage incorporating the MSA, which memorialized the in-court
agreement on fees.
¶ 13 On June 12, 2025, petitioner filed a motion seeking to “clarify” what would happen
if respondent failed to comply with one term of the MSA. At a hearing on this motion, the trial
court told petitioner it would address any noncompliance if it occurred and stated, “I would suggest
don’t file anything in regards to this until—unless there is some type of violation of the order.”
¶ 14 On June 30, 2025, petitioner filed what on appeal he calls a “post-judgment relief
-3- packet,” which contained, inter alia, a “Request for Leave to File Post-Judgment Motion for Relief
and Sanctions” (request for leave), a “Post-Judgment Motion for Relief and Sanctions”
(postjudgment motion), and a “Motion to Compel Clarification of Representation Status and Basis
of Attorney’s Fees” (motion to compel). The motion was not presented as an attachment or exhibit
to the request for leave. However, the request for leave asked the trial court to:
“A. Grant leave to file the attached [request for leave] and all accompanying
documentation, ***;
B. Direct the Clerk to file the same instanter;
C. Set the matter for hearing on July 14, 21, or 28, 2025 ***.”
¶ 15 In the postjudgment motion, petitioner asserted, inter alia, “Subsequent disclosures
from Prairie State Legal Services (‘PSLS’)—which has since declined to represent Petitioner due
to a conflict of interest—have led Petitioner to reasonably believe that Respondent’s legal services
were provided pro bono, rendering the attorney’s fee representations materially misleading.” He
asked, inter alia, for the vacatur of the MSA and for sanctions against Gieck under Rule 137.
¶ 16 In the motion to compel, petitioner stated he went to PSLS on June 11, 2025, to
seek postjudgment representation in this case and was advised PSLS could not represent him due
to a conflict of interest. From this, he inferred, “Respondent has received or is receiving subsidized
or pro bono legal assistance through [PSLS].” Petitioner stated he further inferred this
representation was inconsistent with Gieck’s statement to the trial court she was representing
respondent under a retainer agreement.
¶ 17 The trial court did not address petitioner’s request for leave or any other document
in the postjudgment relief packet.
¶ 18 This appeal followed.
-4- ¶ 19 II. ANALYSIS
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 IL App (4th) 250712-U NOTICE FILED This Order was filed under December 12, 2025 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-25-0712 Carla Bender not precedent except in the th 4 District Appellate limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the AARON JUSTICE SPENCER, ) Circuit Court of Petitioner-Appellant, ) Henry County and ) No. 25DN12 JESSICA JUDITH DIAZ LOPEZ, ) Respondent-Appellee. ) Honorable ) Colby G. Hathaway, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Harris and Justice Lannerd concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, holding petitioner failed to establish a reason why it should vacate his acknowledged stipulation and agreement to pay $3,500 of respondent’s attorney fees.
¶2 The trial court entered an order dissolving the marriage of petitioner, Aaron Justice
Spencer, and respondent, Jessica Judith Diaz Lopez, on June 11, 2025. The judgment incorporated
a marital settlement agreement (MSA) providing, among other things, petitioner would pay $3,500
of respondent’s attorney fees, an amount to which petitioner agreed in open court. On appeal,
petitioner asserts the court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees in the absence of a
record of the time counsel spent on the case and asks us to vacate the MSA. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The parties married on January 8, 2025. On March 20, 2025, petitioner filed a pro se
petition for dissolution of marriage. He listed a car loan as the only marital debt. Alicia D. Gieck of the H.J. Dane Law Office entered her appearance for respondent on April 17, 2025. Respondent
filed an answer the same day, which said no marital debt existed. Gieck signed all of respondent’s
filings and appeared on respondent’s behalf.
¶5 On April 21, 2025, petitioner filed, among other things, “Petitioner’s Motion for
Entry of Partial Judgment on Contested Marital Debt.” This filing included exhibits documenting
the existence of the joint car loan.
¶6 On April 25, 2025, respondent filed an amended answer, in which she admitted the
debt existed.
¶7 On April 28, 2025, petitioner filed a group 11 of documents, which included
(1) “Petitioner’s Motion in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Amend Answer,”
(2) “Petitioner’s Motion to Preclude Trial on Issues of Indemnification or Liquidation of Vehicle
Asset,” and (3) “Petitioner’s Standing Objection to Future Amendments.” On April 30, 2025,
petitioner filed “Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Improper Amendments Contained in Respondent’s
Response and to Enter Partial Judgment.” On May 5, 2025, he filed “Petitioner’s Motion for Entry
of Final Judgment of Dissolution of Mariage.”
¶8 On May 19, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on petitioner’s filings. Petitioner
said he wanted an immediate final judgment. Respondent appeared through Gieck and offered to
take both the car and the associated debt. The court concluded too much confusion existed to enter
an order immediately and set a June 30, 2025, hearing date.
¶9 On June 2, 2025, respondent filed a “Motion for Temporary Relief Pursuant to 750
ILCS 5/501,” in which she asked the trial court to grant her interim attorney fees of $3,500.
Respondent stated she had given Gieck a $2,000 retainer, which, because of the apparent simplicity
of the case, Gieck expected would be sufficient to pay for respondent’s representation. However,
-2- because of the volume of petitioner’s filings, respondent owed Gieck $1,120. Respondent further
moved for sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court 137 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018) based on what she
asserted were petitioner’s meritless or false filings. “For example, on April 25, 2025, [petitioner]
filed a Motion to Strike or Clarify Respondent’s Answer to Question 11 of the Petition of
Dissolution. *** [However, the] response to Question 11 repeats—word for word—the language
in [the dissolution] Petition.” (Emphasis in original.)
¶ 10 On June 3 and 4, 2025, petitioner filed three more documents, including a “Motion
to Challenge and Oppose Respondent’s Motions for Temporary Relief and Sanctions.”
¶ 11 The trial court held a hearing to address petitioner’s filings on June 11, 2025. He
asked the court to consider his offer of a settlement, wherein he agreed to respondent’s disposition
of the car and further would agree to pay respondent’s attorney fees if he could do so over 120
days, with $500 to be paid immediately and additional payments to be made every 30 days.
Respondent accepted these terms.
¶ 12 The trial court allowed the parties to prove up the agreement on the spot. The court
swore in both parties as witnesses. Both parties agreed they had irreconcilable differences and
wished to have the marriage dissolved on the terms to which they had agreed. The court entered a
judgment of dissolution of marriage incorporating the MSA, which memorialized the in-court
agreement on fees.
¶ 13 On June 12, 2025, petitioner filed a motion seeking to “clarify” what would happen
if respondent failed to comply with one term of the MSA. At a hearing on this motion, the trial
court told petitioner it would address any noncompliance if it occurred and stated, “I would suggest
don’t file anything in regards to this until—unless there is some type of violation of the order.”
¶ 14 On June 30, 2025, petitioner filed what on appeal he calls a “post-judgment relief
-3- packet,” which contained, inter alia, a “Request for Leave to File Post-Judgment Motion for Relief
and Sanctions” (request for leave), a “Post-Judgment Motion for Relief and Sanctions”
(postjudgment motion), and a “Motion to Compel Clarification of Representation Status and Basis
of Attorney’s Fees” (motion to compel). The motion was not presented as an attachment or exhibit
to the request for leave. However, the request for leave asked the trial court to:
“A. Grant leave to file the attached [request for leave] and all accompanying
documentation, ***;
B. Direct the Clerk to file the same instanter;
C. Set the matter for hearing on July 14, 21, or 28, 2025 ***.”
¶ 15 In the postjudgment motion, petitioner asserted, inter alia, “Subsequent disclosures
from Prairie State Legal Services (‘PSLS’)—which has since declined to represent Petitioner due
to a conflict of interest—have led Petitioner to reasonably believe that Respondent’s legal services
were provided pro bono, rendering the attorney’s fee representations materially misleading.” He
asked, inter alia, for the vacatur of the MSA and for sanctions against Gieck under Rule 137.
¶ 16 In the motion to compel, petitioner stated he went to PSLS on June 11, 2025, to
seek postjudgment representation in this case and was advised PSLS could not represent him due
to a conflict of interest. From this, he inferred, “Respondent has received or is receiving subsidized
or pro bono legal assistance through [PSLS].” Petitioner stated he further inferred this
representation was inconsistent with Gieck’s statement to the trial court she was representing
respondent under a retainer agreement.
¶ 17 The trial court did not address petitioner’s request for leave or any other document
in the postjudgment relief packet.
¶ 18 This appeal followed.
-4- ¶ 19 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 20 On appeal, petitioner asks us to vacate the award of attorney fees in the MSA. He
contends, because counsel did not offer any support for the fee request, the trial court abused its
discretion by awarding the fees. He further contends his agreement to pay $3,500 in fees was
“void” because counsel was representing respondent pro bono. He notes he raised his claim
counsel had lied about her fees in his motion to compel. However, he further notes that although
the clerk filed his postjudgment relief packet, the court never addressed his allegation of Gieck’s
misconduct. He asserts, “The suppression of a motion directly aimed at clarifying the legitimacy
of the fee provision only compounds the [court’s] abuse of discretion [in awarding attorney fees].”
¶ 21 Because respondent has declined to file a brief, our analysis of petitioner’s claims
must follow the principles of First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill.
2d 128, 133 (1976), as we have expanded upon them in Thomas v. Koe, 395 Ill. App. 3d 570, 577
(2009). Under the Talandis principles, when we have only the appellant’s brief, we may:
“(1) *** serve as an advocate for the appellee and decide the case when the court
determines justice so requires, (2) *** decide the merits of the case if the record is
simple and the issues can be easily decided without the aid of the appellee’s brief,
or (3) *** reverse the trial court when the appellant’s brief demonstrates
prima facie reversible error that is supported by the record.” Koe, 395 Ill. App. 3d
at 577.
Here, the record is simple, and we can decide the merits of petitioner’s claim without the aid of a
brief from respondent.
¶ 22 A. The Trial Court Did Not Grant a Petition for Attorney Fees
¶ 23 Petitoner’s claim the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees
-5- without proper evidence fails because he agreed to the fee order. “[A]greed orders are effectively
the parties’ private contractual agreement,” and, as a consequence, are “ ‘generally binding on the
parties and cannot be amended or varied without the consent of each party.’ ” Draper & Kramer,
Inc. v. King, 2014 IL App (1st) 132073, ¶ 28 (quoting In re Marriage of Rolseth, 389 Ill. App. 3d
969, 971 (2009)). Petitioner cites authority relating to courts’ granting of fee petitions, but this
authority is inapplicable here. Gieck’s petition for interim fees became moot when petitioner
agreed in court to pay the fees and agreed to include those fees in the MSA.
¶ 24 B. Petitioner Failed to Effectively File a Motion Challenging Attorney Fees
¶ 25 Petitioner failed to mount an effective postjudgment challenge to the fee agreement
in the MSA. To be sure, a party may, within 30 days of the entry of an agreed order, seek to vacate
the order by filing a motion under section 2-1301(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS
5/2-1301(e) (West 2024)). McNulty v. McNulty, 2022 IL App (1st) 201239, ¶ 45. In such
circumstances, the movant need only show “substantial justice was not achieved by the agreed
order.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McNulty, 2022 IL App (1st) 201239, ¶ 45. Petitioner’s
argument here can fairly be read as saying the trial court should have vacated the fee agreement
because he presented evidence Gieck lied about what respondent owed her. But, as we next
explain, petitioner failed to file a motion challenging the fees.
¶ 26 The core failure in petitioner’s attempt to challenge the fee award was his failure to
file a motion to do so. Petitioner complains of the trial court’s “suppression” of his motion to
compel, but the court had no reason to address the postjudgment relief packet containing this
motion. The first document in the packet was the request for leave, which asked the court to order
the clerk to file the other motions in the packet. The request for leave was a motion—a motion is
simply “an application to the court for a ruling or an order in a pending case.” In re Marriage of
-6- Sutherland, 251 Ill. App. 3d 411, 413 (1993). However,
“[u]nless a motion is brought to the attention of the court and the court is requested
to rule on it, the motion is not effectively made. *** Merely filing the motion with
the clerk of the court does not constitute a sufficient application. [Citation]. This
rule is no different if the motion is filed pro se.” People v. Newman, 211 Ill. App.
3d 1087, 1098 (1991).
Petitioner merely filed the packet containing the request for leave, without setting a time for the
court to hear it or in any other way contacting the circuit clerk’s office to secure a hearing date and
provide notice. He did not otherwise bring the packet to the court’s attention. Thus, not only was
the motion to compel (or postjudgment motion) never filed pursuant to the request for leave, but
the request for leave was itself not filed effectively.
¶ 27 We note that even assuming, arguendo, petitioner had succeeded in filing his
postjudgment motion and motion to compel, his claim the attorney fee agreement was the result
of fraudulent misrepresentation was fatally flawed. Everything in the record indicates respondent
was represented by Gieck, whose filings consistently stated she was affiliated with H.J. Dane Law
Office. Nevertheless, petitioner, based only on his allegation PSLS declined to represent him due
to a conflict of interest, makes the cavernous leap in logic to ask the trial court to conclude
respondent’s representation in the divorce was provided by PSLS. Petitioner offered no evidence
suggesting a connection between Gieck and PSLS. The fact an attorney has a conflict of interest
as to a new prospective client does not show they represented another client in the matter. See,
e.g., Ill. R. Pro. Conduct (2010) R. 1.18 (eff. Jan. 1, 2016) (setting out when consultation with a
prospective client can create a conflict of interest barring representation of another client due to
information disclosed by the prospective client). Thus, the basis for petitioner’s claim Gieck was
-7- working pro bono was merely an implausible inference.
¶ 28 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 29 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 30 Affirmed.
-8-