Justia Trusts & Estates Opinion Summaries

Mark executed powers of attorney appointing his spouse, Dorothy, as his agent for health care and property. He also executed a will. Mark revoked the will and executed a new one as he was dying from cancer 17 years later. Mark’s sisters contested the new will because it changed Mark’s disposition of his interests in certain family businesses to their detriment and to the benefit of Dorothy. They allege that Dorothy, as the primary beneficiary, exerted undue influence over Mark to procure the preparation of the new will. Mark's wealth had come from a family business, founded by their father; Mark and Dorothy were married 24 years and had no children.The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Dorothy. What constitutes undue influence depends on the circumstances of each case, and the fiduciary-relationship presumption must be applied with caution in the context of marital relationships. Although Mark’s power of attorney for property created a fiduciary relationship with Dorothy as a matter of law, the circuit court’s directed finding that Dorothy did not procure the preparation of the will was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court reiterated its repudiation of the debilitated-testator theory of presumptive undue influence. View "In re Estate of Coffman" on Justia Law

In January 2018, Lichter filed a personal injury action against Christopher for injuries she suffered in a car accident in February 2016, not knowing that Christopher had died in June 2017. An estate was never opened for Christopher following his death. In April 2018, Lichter successfully moved (735 ILCS 5/2-1008(b)(2)) to appoint Carroll as the special representative of Christopher’s estate for the purpose of defending the lawsuit. Lichter subsequently filed an amended complaint, naming Carroll as the special representative of Christopher’s estate and the defendant. Counsel for Christopher’s insurer, State Farm, appeared on behalf of the defendant. In March 2020, the defendant moved to dismiss Lichter’s complaint (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)), arguing that the action was time-barred because Lichter never moved to appoint a personal representative of Christopher’s estate before the statute of limitations expiring, as required by 735 ILCS 13- 209(c).The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the case; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Subsection (b)(2), relating to the appointment of a special representative is not limited to situations where the plaintiff is aware of the defendant’s death. It was enacted to streamline the court process when there is no personal representative in place to defend a lawsuit. A plaintiff who learns of a defendant’s death after the statute of limitations has expired is not required to move to appoint a personal representative through the probate court. View "Lichter v. Porter Carroll" on Justia Law

McDonald sought letters of administration for the estate of his deceased brother, John. An affidavit averred that John’s only heirs were his parents and his siblings. McDonald had been appointed plenary guardian over John’s person and estate; thereafter, without the prior knowledge of his guardian or the court, John participated in a purported wedding ceremony with Ellizzette. The circuit court entered orders appointing Shawn as administrator and declaring John’s heirs to be John’s parents and siblings. McDonald filed but then withdrew a petition for declaration of invalidity of marriage, and filed a petition to recover assets. The court allowed Ellizzette to file a petition seeking letters of administration based on her assertion that she is John’s surviving spouse, then held that Ellizzette failed to present a prima facie case establishing the validity of the marriage. The Appellate Court remanded, finding the circuit court erred in barring Ellizzette from testifying based on the Dead Man’s Act. 735 ILCS 5/8-201.The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the trial court decision. Under the Probate Act, a ward who wishes to enter into a marriage may do so only with the consent of his guardian. Ellizzette was aware at the time of the marriage that John was under guardianship, so the marriage might not be valid. No best interest finding was ever sought or made. Ellizzette could not have provided any testimony that would have been sufficient to prove the validity of the marriage and could not have been prejudiced by her inability to testify regarding the marriage. View "In re Estate of McDonald" on Justia Law

Donald initially listed no beneficiary who would take any funds remaining in his individual retirement account at his death. In 2013, he was hospitalized. During his hospitalization, someone designated his wife, JoAnn, as beneficiary. When Donald was released from the hospital, he sought a temporary restraining order and injunction. The spouses stipulated to an injunction ordering that neither party engage in any transaction regarding the parties’ financial accounts. That injunction action was later combined with a dissolution action. While still bound by the injunction, Donald changed the beneficiary designation to his sons. After the combined actions were dismissed, Donald died. JoAnn filed suit, alleging that the beneficiary change violated the injunction so that the change was void. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the suit. The injunction did not mention changes of beneficiaries; the change of beneficiary did not vest during the pendency of the injunction or the combined underlying actions. The change of ownership did not occur until after the injunction was dismissed. The circuit court could have distributed whatever amount of the IRA that it found equitable had the dissolution action proceeded to a final judgment. An individual does not, however, have the same interest in her spouse’s property at probate that she does at dissolution. View "Smith v. Vanguard Group Inc." on Justia Law

In 2011, Dr. Parmar died, leaving an estate valued at more than $5 million. Plaintiff was appointed as executor of the estate. At the time of Parmar’s death, the estate was not subject to taxation under the Estate Tax Act, 35 ILCS 405/1. Two days after Parmar’s death, the state revived the tax for the estates of persons who died after December 31, 2010. Plaintiff filed the estate’s Illinois estate tax return and paid the tax liability. Plaintiff eventually filed a second amended return, claiming that the amendment to the Estate Tax Act did not apply to his mother’s estate and no tax was due, then filed a purported class action challenging the retroactivity and constitutionality of the Act. Plaintiff requested a declaration that the Estate Tax Act applies only to the estates of persons who died on or after the amendment’s effective date or that the Estate Tax Act is unconstitutional. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the suit’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; because the complaint seeks a money judgment against the state, it is barred under the State Lawsuit Immunity Act (745 ILCS 5/1). The complaint must be filed in the Illinois Court of Claims. The damages that plaintiff seeks go beyond the exclusive purpose and limits of the Estate Tax Refund Fund and potentially subject the state to liability. Plaintiff could have filed suit in the circuit court under the Protest Moneys Act (30 ILCS 230/1). View "Parmar v. Madigan" on Justia Law

Successor agent owed no fiduciary duties to principal before occurrence of contingencies stated in power of attorney.Ruth was named as executor of the estates of her parents, Thomas and Doris, following their deaths in 2012. As executor, Ruth filed two actions on behalf of the estates against her brother, Rodney, involving quitclaim deeds signed by Thomas in 2011 which conveyed farmland to Rodney. At the time of these transactions, Rodney was designated as the successor agent under both Thomas’s and Doris’s powers of attorney. The estates alleged that Rodney breached his fiduciary and statutory duties as an agent by personally benefitting from the real estate transactions. The Grundy County circuit court dismissed both actions. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the action involving Thomas’s estate and reversed with respect to Doris’s estate. The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that both actions were properly dismissed. The plain language of Thomas’s power of attorney appointed Rodney as agent only upon the occurrence of a specific contingency. Rodney’s authority to act on behalf of Thomas did not arise until Doris died, became incompetent, or became unwilling to act as an agent. Until that time, Rodney owed no fiduciary duties to Thomas. View "In re Estate of Shelton" on Justia Law