Summers v. Catlin

2026 IL App (3d) 250194

                                 Opinion filed April 24, 2026
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                   IN THE

                                     APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                             THIRD DISTRICT

                                                     2026

      PAUL SUMMERS,                                    )       Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                                       )       of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
             Petitioner-Appellant,                     )       Will County.
                                                       )
             v.                                        )       Appeal No. 3-25-0194
                                                       )       Circuit No. 22-FA-357
      SARA CATLIN,                                     )
                                                       )       Honorable
             Respondent-Appellee.                      )       Raymond A. Nash,
                                                       )       Judge, presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            PRESIDING JUSTICE HETTEL delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
            Justices Holdridge and Bertani concurred in the judgment and opinion.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                 OPINION

¶1          The circuit court issued an allocation judgment involving the petitioner, Paul Summers,

     and the respondent, Sara Catlin. Summers filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.

     Subsequently, he requested a waiver from the cost of the transcripts he claimed were needed for

     his appeal, as he had previously been granted a full waiver of court fees pursuant to Illinois

     Supreme Court Rule 298 (eff. Sept. 1, 2023). The circuit court denied Summers’s request and

     certified a question for this court regarding the scope of the waiver granted to Summers during the

     case. We granted Summers’s request for leave to appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule

     308 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019) and now answer the certified question in the affirmative.
¶2                                          I. BACKGROUND

¶3          In June 2024, the circuit court issued an allocation judgment involving the parties and their

     minor child. Generally, the allocation judgment designated Catlin as the majority-time parent and

     granted Summers certain periods of parenting time.

¶4          Subsequently, Summers sought, and was granted, a full waiver of court fees pursuant to

     Illinois Supreme Court Rule 298 (eff. Sept. 1, 2023) because he was receiving means-based public

     benefits.

¶5          In January 2025, Summers filed a notice of appeal from numerous orders of the circuit

     court, including the June 2024 allocation judgment. He filed a request for preparation of the record

     on appeal but learned that the total cost of the transcripts would allegedly be $19,998.50.

     Accordingly, he filed a motion to request a waiver of the cost of those transcripts, citing the full

     fee waiver he had previously been granted.

¶6          The circuit court held a hearing on Summers’s motion and issued a written order in March

     2025. The court’s order stated:

                    “The Court denies the Petitioner’s Motion to Request Waiver of Transcripts Needed

            for Appeal. The Court finds that, although the Petitioner was granted a fee waiver pursuant

            to Supreme Court Rule 298 on September 16, 2024, that ‘fees, costs and charges’ as listed

            in 735 ILCS 5/5-105(a)(1) does not include a waiver of court transcript fees.

                    The Court distinguishes the instant matter from the 2nd District case, In re

            Marriage of Main, 2020 IL App (2d) 200131 for the following reasons:

                    —The Appellant in Main unsuccessfully sought the services of a pro bono attorney;

            the Petitioner in this matter did not seek the services of a pro bono attorney.




                                                      2
                       —The Appellant in Main sought a transcript fee waiver under 735 ILCS 5/5-105

              and 735 ILCS 5/5-105.5; the Petitioner in this matter seeks a waiver only under 735 ILCS

              5/5-105

                       —The Illinois state legislature amended 735 ILCS 5/5-105 (Public Act 102-55 eff.

              8-20-21) subsequent to Main but did not amend the section to include a waiver of transcript

              fees

                       The Court, on oral motion of the Petitioner and the Respondent, certifies the

              following question pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308(a):

                       When a fee waiver has been granted to a litigant pursuant to Supreme Court Rule

              298, does court costs, as defined in 735 ILCS 5/5-105, extend to the cost of transcripts?

                       The Court declines to certify a 2nd question, over Petitioner’s objection, in regard

              to Court’s authority to limit transcripts for the reasons stated in the record.”

¶7            We granted Summers’s application for leave to appeal pursuant to Rule 308.

¶8                                               II. ANALYSIS

¶9            On appeal, Summers argues that this court should answer the certified question in the

       affirmative, reverse the circuit court’s order that denied his request for a waiver of the cost of

       transcripts, and remand the case with instructions for the circuit court to enter an order granting

       his waiver request for the transcripts necessary to his appeal.

¶ 10          It is of no consequence that Catlin has not filed a response brief in this appeal; we will

       address the certified question on its merits anyway. In re Marriage of Main, 2020 IL App (2d)

       200131, ¶ 10.

¶ 11          Rule 308(a) provides that



                                                         3
              “[w]hen the trial court, in making an interlocutory order not otherwise appealable, finds

              that the order involves a question of law as to which there is substantial ground for

              difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance

              the ultimate termination of the litigation, the court shall so state in writing, identifying the

              question of law involved. Such a statement may be made at the time of the entry of the

              order or thereafter on the court’s own motion or on motion of any party. The Appellate

              Court may thereupon in its discretion allow an appeal from the order.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 308(a)

              (eff. Oct. 1, 2019).

       While the scope of review in a Rule 308(a) appeal is generally limited to the certified question, the

       propriety of the underlying circuit court order may be reviewed as well if doing so is “in the best

       interests of judicial economy and the need to reach an equitable result.” Simmons v. Homatas, 236

       Ill. 2d 459, 466 (2010). However, we also recognize that Rule 308 “was not intended to be a

       mechanism for expedited review of an order that merely applies the law to the facts of a particular

       case.” In re Estate of Luccio, 2012 IL App (1st) 121153, ¶ 17. We review certified questions

       de novo. Moore v. Chicago Park District, 2012 IL 112788, ¶ 9. Additionally, issues of statutory

       interpretation are reviewed de novo. In re Marriage of Dynako, 2021 IL 126835, ¶ 14. De novo

       review means we grant no deference to the circuit court’s judgment (see In re Estate of Boyar,

       2013 IL 113655, ¶ 27), which includes the reasons the circuit court employed to distinguish Main

       from the instant case.

¶ 12          The certified question at issue in this appeal is as follows: “When a fee waiver has been

       granted to a litigant pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 298, does court costs, as defined in 735 ILCS

       5/5-105, extend to the cost of transcripts?”




                                                         4
¶ 13          In relevant part, Rule 298(a) provides that an indigent, self-represented defendant can apply

       “for waiver of court fees, costs, and charges in a civil action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/5-105.” Ill.

       S. Ct. R. 298(a) (eff. Sept. 1, 2023). Section 5-105(b)(1) of the Code provides that “[i]f the court

       finds that the applicant is an indigent person, the court shall grant the applicant a full fees, costs,

       and charges waiver entitling him or her to sue or defend the action without payment of any of the

       fees, costs, and charges.” 735 ILCS 5/5-105(b)(1) (West 2024).

¶ 14          “ ‘Fees, costs, and charges’ ” are defined by section 5-105(a)(1), in relevant part, as

       “payments imposed on a party in connection with the prosecution or defense of a civil action,

       including, but not limited to *** all *** processes and procedures deemed by the court to be

       necessary to commence, prosecute, defend, or enforce relief in a civil action.” Id. § 5-105(a)(1). It

       is this section that we must interpret to answer the question certified to us by the circuit court.

¶ 15          The Second District addressed this very question in Main. Main, 2020 IL App (2d) 200131,

       ¶ 25 (stating that “[w]e must determine whether court reporter fees for transcripts necessary to an

       appeal are included within the scope of [section 5-105(a)(1)]”). The Main court found section 5-

       105(a)(1) to be ambiguous, noting that “an appeal is a proceeding beyond the prosecution or

       defense of an action in circuit court, and it is doubtful whether an appeal comes within the scope

       of ‘enforcing’ civil relief,” yet, at the same time, acknowledging that transcripts are a necessary

       part of a complete record that an appellant must provide to a reviewing court. Id. ¶¶ 28-30. Looking

       to other aids of construction beyond section 5-105(a)(1)’s plain language, the Main court sought

       to harmonize Rule 298 with section 5-105(a)(1), as well as section 5-105.5 (735 ILCS 5/5-105.5

       (West 2024)), as that section addressed a relevant situation—namely, indigent defendants

       “represented in a civil action by a civil legal services provider or attorney in a court-sponsored

       pro bono program” (id. § 5-105.5(b)). Main, 2020 IL App (2d) 200131, ¶¶ 32-44.


                                                         5
¶ 16          Significantly, section 5-105(b) explicitly states that “all fees and costs relat[ed] to filing,

       appearing, transcripts on appeal, and service of process shall be waived” (735 ILCS 5/5-105.5(b)

       (West 2024)), whereas section 5-105 does not mention transcripts on appeal in any of its

       subsections (id. § 5-105). The Main court was aware of this difference (Main, 2020 IL App (2d)

       200131, ¶ 23), but still concluded:

                      “Nothing in this statutory scheme demonstrates any intent, by either the legislature

              or the supreme court, to treat pro se indigent litigants less favorably or even differently

              than those who are represented by [civil legal services providers] or pro bono attorneys.

              To the contrary, several provisions demonstrate an intent that the two groups of indigent

              litigants should receive the same benefits and the same access to the courts. For instance,

              section 5-105(h-5) provides that all costs that would be waived for indigent pro se litigants

              under section 5-105 should also be waived for indigent litigants represented by counsel

              under section 5-105.5. See 735 ILCS 5/5-105(h-5) (West 2018) (parties represented under

              section 5-105.5 may sue or defend without paying ‘fees, costs, and charges,’ as defined in

              section 5-105(a)(1)). Further, notwithstanding the slightly different description in section

              5-105.5(b) of the charges that may be waived for indigent litigants represented by counsel,

              Rule 298(d) mandates that such litigants receive the same waiver of charges as pro se

              indigent litigants. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 298(d) (eff. July 1, 2019) (the charges that litigants

              represented under section 5-105.5 are freed from paying are those ‘defined in 735 ILCS

              5/5-105(a)(1)’).

                      In seeking to shed light on the scope of the fee waiver, we ‘may also consider the

              reason for the statute, the problems it seeks to remedy, the purposes to be achieved, and

              the consequences of interpreting the statute one way or another.’ [Sperl v. Henry], 2018 IL


                                                        6
              123132, ¶ 23. Here, the purpose of these sources of law is to ensure that indigent litigants

              are able to proceed on the same footing as those with greater financial resources in

              asserting, defending, and enforcing their rights. In light of this purpose, we agree with the

              petitioner that it would be anomalous to allow indigent litigants represented by counsel

              under section 5-105.5 to receive without charge transcripts necessary for an appeal but

              flatly deny that same statutory benefit to pro se litigants who are equally impoverished.

                      Viewing the relevant laws and rules as a whole, the slightly different language used

              in section 5-105.5(b) cannot be seen as establishing better treatment for indigent litigants

              who are fortunate enough to have counsel. Rather, it must be seen as simply a newer and

              briefer rephrasing of the waivable charges set out in the original cost-waiver provision,

              section 5-105(a)(1). As such, it clarifies the legislature’s intent that the charges waivable

              under section 5-105 include the cost of transcripts necessary for an appeal.” Id. ¶¶ 38-40.

¶ 17          We agree with the Second District’s analysis in Main and adopt it for purposes of this

       appeal. Accordingly, we conclude, as did the Main court, that “a self-represented litigant who has

       been granted a waiver of fees under section 5-105 is entitled to a waiver of transcript costs under

       Rule 298, which provides that waivable fees are those set out in section 5-105(a)(1).” Id. ¶ 46.

¶ 18          Lastly, we note, as the Main court did, that section 5-105(a)(1) limits the waiver of “fees,

       costs, and charges” to those “deemed by the court to be necessary.” 735 ILCS 5/5-105(a)(1) (West

       2024); Main, 2020 IL App (2d) 200131, ¶ 46. Accordingly, on remand, we direct the circuit court

       to review Summers’s request for transcripts and determine which transcripts are in fact necessary

       for his appeal. Main, 2020 IL App (2d) 200131, ¶ 46 (noting that “necessary transcripts include

       those that are necessary to allow us to review the issues the litigant wishes to raise”).




                                                         7
¶ 19                                         III. CONCLUSION

¶ 20          We answer the certified question of the circuit court of Will County in the affirmative and

       remand the cause for further proceedings in which the circuit court is to (1) determine which

       transcripts are necessary to Summers’ appeal and (2) provide those transcripts to him without

       charge and without delay.

¶ 21          Certified question answered; cause remanded with directions.




                                                       8
                    Summers v. Catlin, 2026 IL App (3d) 250194


Decision Under Review:    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 22-FA-357;
                          the Hon. Raymond A. Nash, Judge, presiding.


Attorneys                 Paul Summers, of Elwood, appellant pro se.
for
Appellant:


Attorneys                 No brief filed for appellee.
for
Appellee:




                                          9