Michelle A. Lawless
The Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC
161 N. Clark St. Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois
Telephone: (312) 741-1092
www.malfamilylaw.com; michelle@malfamilylaw.com.

Fees and costs waiver pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 298 extends to transcripts for prosecuting an appeal. After the trial court issued an allocation judgment designating mother as the majority-time parent, father sought and was granted a full waiver of court fees pursuant to SCR 298 and filed a notice of appeal from numerous court orders including the allocation judgment. When preparing the request for preparation of the record, he learned the total cost of the transcripts was over $19,000 and filed a motion for waiver of the costs based on his 298 petition being previously granted. The trial court denied the motion on the following grounds: (1) father had not sought the services of a pro bono lawyer; and (2) he only sought a waiver under 735 ILCS 5/5-105 and not 735 ILCS 5/5-105.5 The trial distinguished the case at bar from In re Marriage of Main, 2020 IL App (2d) 200131 due to the fact that appellant had sought the services of a pro bono lawyer and sought relief under both sections of the code of civil procedure. 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, does court costs, as defined in 735 ILCS 5/5-105 extend to the cost of the transcripts?” The Third District answered the question in the affirmative and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine which transcripts were necessary for father’s appeal and to provide those to him without delay. The Court upheld the Main case and relied on the language in 735 ILCS 5/5-105.5(b) which explicitly states that all fees and costs related to filing, appearing, transcripts on appeal, and service of process shall be waived. It also noted that the Main court was aware that Section 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 bono attorneys. Summers v. Catlin, 2026 IL App (3d) 250194.
Summers v. Catlin