Michelle A. Lawless,Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC, Chicago
312-741-1092 | Email Michelle Lawless
Third District Holds Supreme Court Rule 298 Fee Waivers Extend to Appellate Transcripts
In Summers v. Catlin, 2026 IL App (3d) 250194, after the trial court issued an allocation judgment designating the mother as the “majority-time parent,” the father sought and was granted a full waiver of court fees pursuant to S.Ct. Rule 298 and filed a notice of appeal from numerous court orders including the allocation judgment. When preparing the request for preparation of the record, the father learned the total cost of the transcripts was over $19,000 and filed a motion for waiver of the costs based on the Rule 298 petition being previously granted. 2026 IL App (3d) 250194 at ¶5.
The trial court denied the motion on the following grounds: (1) the father had not sought the services of a pro bono lawyer; and (2) he sought a waiver only under §5-105, not §5-105.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq. The trial distinguished the case at bar from In re Marriage of Main, 2020 IL App (2d) 200131, 175 N.E.3d 222, 447 Ill.Dec. 854, due to the fact that the appellant had sought the services of a pro bonolawyer and sought relief under both sections of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2026 IL App (3d) 250194 at ¶6.
The trial court also certified the following question for the appellate court: “When a fee waiver has been granted to a litigant pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 298, [do] court costs, as defined in 735 ILCS 5/5-105, extend to the cost of the transcripts?” Id. The Third District answered the question in the affirmative and remanded the case to the trial court to determine which transcripts were necessary for the father’s appeal and to provide those to him without delay.
The appellate court upheld Main, supra, and relied on the language in 735 ILCS 5/5-105.5(b), which “explicitly states that ‘all fees and costs relat[ed] to filing, appearing, transcripts on appeal, and service of process shall be waived.’ ” 2026 IL App (3d) 250194 at ¶16. It also noted that the Main court was aware that §5-105 and its subsections did not include a reference to transcripts on appeal but concluded that nothing in the statutory scheme demonstrates any intent by the legislature or the Supreme Court to treat pro se indigent litigants less favorably or even differently than those represented by civil legal services providers or pro bonoattorneys.
For more information about family law, see FAMILY LAW: PROPERTY AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF DISSOLUTION ACTIONS (IICLE®, 2023). Purchase the publication here or Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.