{ "id": 5399422, "name": "Stanley Stoller, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruno Onuszko et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Stoller v. Onuszko.", "decision_date": "1973-03-01", "docket_number": "No. 56698", "first_page": "598", "last_page": "600", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "10 Ill. App. 3d 598" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "56 Ill.App.2d 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5284832, 5285644 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/56/0175-02", "/ill-app-2d/56/0175-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 N.E.2d 72", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 Ill.App.2d 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1585455 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/118/0419-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 N.E.2d 832", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 Ill.2d 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2767562 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/15/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 F.Supp. 565", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 691564 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/87/0565-01" ] }, { "cite": "249 N.E.2d 153", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 Ill.App.2d 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1594017 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/110/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 N.E.2d 28", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 Ill.App. 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3272487 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/293/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.E.2d 119", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 Ill.App. 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5011174 ], "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/339/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 N.E.2d 754", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 383, "char_count": 6178, "ocr_confidence": 0.792, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.615903444194912e-08, "percentile": 0.4039853288743861 }, "sha256": "523200e037722122dd5e02d07560a28d8f6e17bfefb41efdfd4cc3533df5fc88", "simhash": "1:8945cfca096f9ea9", "word_count": 1010 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:00.166365+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Stanley Stoller, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruno Onuszko et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an action to enforce an attorney\u2019s lien. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 13, sec. 14.) The circuit court of Cook County, chancery division, dismissed plaintiff\u2019s second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff appeals from the final order entered thereon.\nThe issue for our review is whether the plaintiff can maintain a suit to enforce his attorney\u2019s lien based on a contingent fee contract which pertains to an action filed in the divorce division of the circuit court. The divorce action involved alimony, child support and property rights. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his second amended complaint.\nWe affirm.\nPlaintiff, Stanley Stoller, an attorney, entered into an \u201cattorney\u2019s contract\u201d with Anna Onuszko, one of the defendants in this action. Under the terms of this contract, in consideration for plaintiff\u2019s services in prosecuting claims against Josef Onuszko, Anna\u2019s husband, Bruno Onuszko, their son, and Celeste Onuszko, Bruno\u2019s wife, plaintiff was to receive 40 per cent of any recovery. The claims involved divorce, alimony, child support and property settlement.\nAnna Onuszko, through the plaintiff, filed a one-count complaint in the divorce division of the circuit court entitled \u201cAnna Onuszko v. Josef Onuszko, Bruno Onuszko, and Celeste Onuszko \u2014 Complaint for Divorce and Other Relief.\u201d The complaint alleged desertion as grounds for the divorce. It also alleged that Bruno forced his mother, Anna, to convey to him her one-half interest in certain real property that she held as joint tenant with her husband. The prayer for relief requested, inter alia, that the court declare Bruno \u201ctrustee ex malificio\u201d as to his mother\u2019s one-half interest and that Bruno reconvey her interest in this property back to her. She further requested that Josefs one-half interest be used to satisfy any unpaid obligations of support and to satisfy counsel\u2019s claim for attorney\u2019s fees.\nIn his second amended complaint, Stoller alleged that he was \u201cfaithful and industrious and pursued the claims of Anna Onuszko with vigor.\u201d His work on the divorce case culminated in an agreement reached at a pretrial hearing in which Bruno agreed to convey to his mother a fee simple interest in the real estate in question. Soon after this Anna discharged the plaintiff as her attorney without any fault on his part, and the conveyance to her never took place. On Anna\u2019s motion, filed by her new counsel, the trial court dismissed the divorce case.\nPlaintiff served notice of attorney\u2019s lien on Josef, Bruno and Celeste Onuszko. He contends that attempts were made to defeat his lien by a conveyance of the real property to a trustee, Lucie Onuszko, Anna\u2019s daughter. Plaintiff requests in his prayer for relief that the court specifically enforce the contingent fee contract and that he received an undivided 40 per cent interest in the real property, free and clear of all liens after November 8, 1966. Plaintiff insists that if Anna had not discharged him she would have acquired real estate, past due support, attorney\u2019s fees and costs worth $41,250 through his efforts.\nIt is against public policy for attorneys to enter into contingent \u2022fee contracts in divorce actions. (In re Fisher (1958), 15 Ill.2d 139, 153 N.E.2d 832.) Plaintiff cites Warner v. Basten (1969), 118 Ill.App.2d 419, 255 N.E.2d 72, for the propositions that contingent fee contracts are valid, that when an attorney is wrongfuHy discharged he may receive compensation according to the terms of the contract, and that a contingent fee of 40 per cent of any recovery is fair and reasonable. Warner is not applicable to the facts in the instant case. Warner was a personal injury action in which the attorney was discharged without cause after he had investigated the case. The contract called for 25 per cent of any settlement and 33 per cent of any judgment. The case was settled. In his suit to enforce his attorney\u2019s lien, the appellate court affirmed the trial court\u2019s award of 25 per cent of the settlement.\nZagar v. Zagar (1965), 56 Ill.App.2d 175, 205 N.E.2d 754, which the plaintiff cites, upheld the validity of a contingent fee contract for 50 per cent of collected arrearages under a separate maintenance decree. Because the contract involved only arrearages, the court\u2019s decision did not change the policy enunciated in Fisher, and the case is : therefore distinguishable from the instant case.\nWe also find fault with the plaintiffs \u00fase of the Attorney\u2019s Lien Act in an attempt to enforce this void and unenforceable contract. The Attorney\u2019s Lien Act has no application to divorce suits. (Pressney v. Pressney (1950), 339 Ill.App. 371, 90 N.E.2d 119; Thoresen v. Thoresen (1937), 293 Ill.App. 168, 12 N.E.2d 28.) Plaintiff relies on Rosmanitz v. Rosmanitz (1969), 110 Ill.App.2d 349, 249 N.E.2d 153, in which the court held that an \u25a0 attorney\u2019s hen could attach to real estate which was the subject matter of one count of a two-count complaint. Although the other count was for separate maintenance, the court decided this would not be a bar to the enforcement of plaintiff\u2019s lien. In the instant case, plaintiff argues that he lumped two causes of action in One count and that his hen attached to the real estate which he alleges is the subject matter of one of the causes of action.\nPlaintiffs argument as to the propriety of his lien \u2022 is of no avail, because \u25a0 he seeks through its use to enforce a void and unenforceable contract of employment. We will not enforce an- attorney\u2019s hen predicated on an invalid or unlawful contract of employment. (Cupp v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. (N.D. Ill. 1949), 87 F.Supp. 565.) In Rosmanitz the attorney used the hen to recover the value of his services. Rosmanitz is .distinguishable.\nFor the above reasons, the order of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed. ,\nOrder affirmed.\nDEMPSEY, P. J., and McNAMARA, J., contiur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Stanley Stoller, pro se.", "Stanley Werdell, of Chicago, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Stanley Stoller, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruno Onuszko et al., Defendants-Appellees.\n(No. 56698;\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nMarch 1, 1973.\nStanley Stoller, pro se.\nStanley Werdell, of Chicago, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0598-01", "first_page_order": 622, "last_page_order": 624 }