West Case Update

Tort Claim in Will Contest Not Subject to Normal Time for Will Challenges

Description
Illinois high court held that when a beneficiary of a will did not learn until several years after the death of the decedent that the beneficiary may have had an interest in the estate, the normal six-month period in which challenges must be filed does not apply.

Topic Wills, Estates, and Trusts

Key Words
Tortious Interference with Inheritance Expectancy; Will Contest; Statute of Limitation

C A S E S U M M A R Y

Facts
Grace Ellis executed a will in 1964 naming Shriners Hospitals for Children as beneficiary of her estate if she died without direct descendents. In 1999, she executed a new will naming Bauman, pastor of her church, as the sole beneficiary. Ellis died in 2003 and the 1999 will was admitted to probate. It was not until 2006 that Shriners became aware of its interest in the 1964 will. Shriners filed suit to contest the 1999 will based on the theory of the tort of intentional interference with an expectance of inheritance. The trial court dismissed the suit as untimely, as the Probate Act requires actions to be filed within six months. The appeals court affirmed. Shriners appealed.

Decision
Reversed and remanded. If a challenger to a will fails to begin a proceeding to contest the will within the six-month statutory timer period, the validity of the will is established. However, the six-month limitation period for filing a will contest is not subject to tolling by fraudulent concealment or any other fact not expressly provided for by the Probate Act. Any ground which, if proved, would invalidate the will, including undue influence, incapacity, fraud, or revocation, may state a cause of action in a will contest proceeding. In this case, the plaintiff must establish: 1) the existence of an expectancy, 2) defendant’s intentional interference with the expectancy, 3) conduct that is tortious in itself, such as fraud, duress, or undue influence, 4) a reasonable certainty that the expectancy would have been realized but for the interference, and 5) damages.

Citation In re Estate of Ellis, ---N.E.2d--- (2009 WL 3471069, Sup. Ct., Ill., 2009)

Back to Wills, Estates, and Trusts Listings

Tort Claim in Will Contest Not Subject to Normal Time for Will Challenges
Description	Illinois high court held that when a beneficiary of a will did not learn until several years after the death of the decedent that the beneficiary may have had an interest in the estate, the normal six-month period in which challenges must be filed does not apply.
Topic	Wills, Estates, and Trusts
Key Words	Tortious Interference with Inheritance Expectancy; Will Contest; Statute of Limitation
C A S E S U M M A R Y
Facts	Grace Ellis executed a will in 1964 naming Shriners Hospitals for Children as beneficiary of her estate if she died without direct descendents. In 1999, she executed a new will naming Bauman, pastor of her church, as the sole beneficiary. Ellis died in 2003 and the 1999 will was admitted to probate. It was not until 2006 that Shriners became aware of its interest in the 1964 will. Shriners filed suit to contest the 1999 will based on the theory of the tort of intentional interference with an expectance of inheritance. The trial court dismissed the suit as untimely, as the Probate Act requires actions to be filed within six months. The appeals court affirmed. Shriners appealed.
Decision	Reversed and remanded. If a challenger to a will fails to begin a proceeding to contest the will within the six-month statutory timer period, the validity of the will is established. However, the six-month limitation period for filing a will contest is not subject to tolling by fraudulent concealment or any other fact not expressly provided for by the Probate Act. Any ground which, if proved, would invalidate the will, including undue influence, incapacity, fraud, or revocation, may state a cause of action in a will contest proceeding. In this case, the plaintiff must establish: 1) the existence of an expectancy, 2) defendant’s intentional interference with the expectancy, 3) conduct that is tortious in itself, such as fraud, duress, or undue influence, 4) a reasonable certainty that the expectancy would have been realized but for the interference, and 5) damages.
Citation	In re Estate of Ellis, ---N.E.2d--- (2009 WL 3471069, Sup. Ct., Ill., 2009)