In re: Estate of Wilson

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 1st District Appellate » 2007 » In re: Estate of Wilson

State: Illinois

Court: 1st District Appellate

Docket No: 1-06-2115 Rel

Case Date: 05/18/2007

Preview:SIXTH DIVISION May 18, 2007

No. 1-06-2115

In re ESTATE OF MARY ANN WILSON, a ) Disabled Person ) ) ) (Arnetta Williams, Guardian of the ) Estate of Mary Ann Wilson ) ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) Karen A. Bailey, ) ) Respondent-Appellant). )

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.

No. 06 P 3549

The Honorable Maureen E. Connors, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: Petitioner Arnetta Williams petitioned the circuit court of Cook County to appoint her temporary guardian of her cousin, Mary Ann Wilson. The circuit court granted her motion and named her Respondent Karen

temporary guardian of Wilson and her estate.

Bailey filed a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin petitioner from exercising any authority pursuant to the circuit court's grant of temporary guardianship. The circuit court

denied respondent's motion for a preliminary injunction and respondent appealed, claiming that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction for failure to meet the requirements of section 2-10 of the Illinois Power of Attorney Act (the Power

1-06-2115 of Attorney Act) (755 ILCS 45/2-10 (West 2004)) and section 11a18(e) of the Probate Act of 1975 (the Probate Act) (755 ILCS 5/11a-18(e) (West 2004)). For the reasons that follow, we affirm

the judgment of the circuit court. BACKGROUND Mary Ann Wilson was born on April 16, 1920, and lived at 10963 South Sangamon Street in Chicago, Illinois, on May 3, 2006. On that same day, Wilson was discovered in her home "totally abandoned, in feces, confused, [unable] to walk or talk, and had lost a lot of weight." Protective services were called and

Wilson was admitted to St. Elizabeth Hospital, where a psychiatric evaluation revealed that she was "oriented only to name, [unable] to give her medical history, [and had] impaired concentration." On May 12, 2006, Isaac Heard, Sr., Wilson's

brother from North Carolina, filed petitions seeking the appointment of Arnetta Williams, Wilson's cousin, as guardian for Wilson and one seeking to appoint Williams as temporary guardian.1 The circuit court appointed Sandra Thiel as guardian

ad litem (GAL) for Wilson and directed her to furnish the court with a written report on May 15, 2006, when it would rule on the petition for temporary guardianship pursuant to section 11a-4 of

The record shows that Heard withdrew his petition after initiating the action in the circuit court from North Carolina and Williams ultimately became the petitioner in this case. 2

1

1-06-2115 the Probate Act. On May 15, 2006, the GAL filed her written report relative to her meeting with Wilson and appeared before the court for a hearing, where Williams was also present. The GAL presented

serious concerns to the circuit court regarding Wilson's physical and financial condition. The GAL also discovered that Karen A.

Bailey was Wilson's agent under several powers of attorney for her property, real estate and healthcare issued in January 2004. Williams and the GAL presented information to the court that bank accounts containing over $180,000 had been withdrawn by Bailey pursuant to her authority under the power of attorney. Due to

the deplorable circumstances under which Wilson was discovered, as well as her health and mental issues, the GAL strongly urged the circuit court to temporarily suspend the powers of attorney granted to Bailey. Based on the preliminary information and the GAL's recommendation, the circuit court temporarily suspended Bailey's authority under the powers of attorney naming her Wilson's agent and appointed Williams as temporary guardian until a hearing on the petition for plenary guardianship could be heard. The court

directed Williams through the order appointing her temporary guardian to: (1) arrange for routine medical care; (2) place Wilson in the South Shore Nursing and Rehabilitation Center; (3)

3

1-06-2115 investigate funds and mail belonging to Wilson; (4) investigate the powers of attorney; and (5) have access to all of Wilson's medical records. On June 7, 2006, Bailey filed an emergency motion to vacate the circuit court's order appointing Williams as temporary guardian and Sandra Thiel as GAL; issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Williams and the GAL from any further action concerning Wilson; and "issue a mandatory injunction for Arnetta Williams to reveal the whereabouts of $200,000 and account for the same." On June 8, the circuit court heard arguments in a During the hearing, David

hearing on Bailey's emergency motion.

Service, Wilson's stepson and Bailey's husband, appeared on June 8, 2006, and filed a petition for guardianship which he withdrew, leaving Bailey as the only party seeking vacation of the circuit court's May 15 order. The following colloquy occurred relative

to what Williams had learned since the May 15, 2006 order had been issued: "MS. WILLIAMS: I discovered some very disturbing things. THE COURT: For Example? A. For example, Ms. Wilson had a USB account that had approximately $187,000 in it, Q. Okay. A. That had been withdrawn by Karen Bailey.

4

1-06-2115 Q. Do you know when? A. Yes August [2005] it was $25,400. Q. Say again? A. $25,400 was the initial withdrawal. That was into

Credit Union One, credit union, and I believe that's Ms. Bailey's personal credit union. Q. So that was $25,000 of the $187[,000]? A. Yes and then the balance of that was withdrawn in November '05 last year. Q. Do you know what happened to the proceeds? A. That money was deposited into Mary Wilson's account at LaSalle Bank. much withdrawn. Since that time the money has been pretty That account has been as high as a hundred

and - - well, I don't know. Q. Okay. A. And that's gone. Q. Three thousand? A. Yes, it's about according [sic] to my preliminary calculations. Q. Okay. today, sir? MR. BRADEN [Attorney for Respondent Bailey]: The whole purpose of this motion, I'm sure you read it, is to vacate So Mr. Brady [sic], what brings you to court It's down to about $3,000 now.

5

1-06-2115 all orders here. The reason is, our position is that the

provisions of the statute has not been followed here, that Karen Bailey has the power of attorney. ***

And it's my understanding from reading the statute that when there's a power of attorney that the Court does not have jurisdiction to proceed on entering guardianship orders and also unless the Court proceeds in accordance with the provisions in the Power of Attorney Act, under that section of the relationship of the agent and the Court that a separate hearing be conducted to determine whether the agent had acted in the best interest of the ward, and that has not been done. In addition, Karen Bailey has not been notified

of any of these proceedings and it's my understanding that she should have been. Q. Did I strike - MR. BRADEN: This was her first time. THE COURT: Did I suspend the powers of the POA? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes because it's suspicious. MR. BRADEN: Today she's been served and she is aware of everything that has happened, and that's my point, judge, that's my point. THE COURT: Well, counsel, let me ask you. Can I get our She should have been notified."

[sic] client under oath and have her answer questions as to

6

1-06-2115 what happened to the all this money? Can we get that done?

MR. BRADEN: Look, Judge, if we had a hearing, if we had a hearing - THE COURT: I would like to know now because I'm concerned. These are serious allegations.

MR. BRADEN: She was acting in accordance with her power of attorney to do that, and if you want to put her under oath, of course, she filed a verified petition, but she's prepared to - -. THE COURT: It doesn't go into the particulars of the assets, though. * * * THE COURT: When did you first start acting as Power of Attorney for property, taking care of the assets of Mary Wilson? KAREN BAILEY: January of 2004. I'm not sure. Q. What was the value of her estate at that time, total value? A. Probably - - I'm not sure, total value may be two hundred and something, I'm not sure. Q. Well, you were the power of attorney. value on the date you took over? What was the Maybe it was February,

You don't know?

7

1-06-2115 A. No, Your Honor. Q. Any idea? A. 250,000, I'm not sure. * * * Q. Let's go on to something else. Was there money

withdrawn from her account, this USB one? A. Yes, it was. Q. What happened to the $25,400? A. I withdrew it because under her, her and her husband,

he told me to withdraw. Q. He? A. It's both of their account. When he got married, he

stated to us that he helped her with that money. Q. Wait. The account had her name on it?

A. Exactly, her and him. Q. So it's her assets. And you're her power of attorney

and you're taking orders from him? A. Her husband. Her and him stated to me that they I can only go by what they was

wanted it out of the bank. telling me.

Q. Well, no, you're supposed to be talking to your principal who is she, not he. * * *

8

1-06-2115 Q. So you withdrew how much? A. It was 25 first because they sent a letter, a thing saying that she could get 25 or whatever. wanted her money. Q. So what happened? A. I put it in a box. * * * Q. I'm just trying to get a picture. took $25,000 cash. What happened? You She said she

And it was in what kind of box?

A. It was a lock box from a safe-deposit." Bailey further testified under oath that she eventually withdrew over $150,000 in cash from the USB account and added it to an additional $50,000 in cash in a box that was stored in Wilson's closet. Bailey also testified that she and her husband,

Wilson's stepson, paid for an addition to her house with Wilson's money so that Wilson and her husband could live with her and her husband. Bailey produced no receipts for the addition to her

house and testified that the contractors only accepted cash payment. Over $200,000 in cash that was stored in Wilson's Williams submitted cancelled checks

closet in a box disappeared.

to the court drawn on Wilson's account and made payable to and endorsed by Bailey, totaling over $100,000. At the conclusion of

the proceedings on June 8, 2006, the circuit court denied

9

1-06-2115 Bailey's motion for temporary restraining order and ordered her to file an accounting by June 27, 2006. On June 27, 2006, Bailey failed to file an accounting. Instead, she filed a motion to amend her previous emergency motions citing "a revelation of additional law and facts that are relevant in assisting the court in rendering a just and correct ruling on the motion." The court heard arguments on June 29, Bailey filed a

2006, on Bailey's amended emergency motion.

supplemental amended motion to vacate the May 15, 2006 order on June 30, 2006. On July 5, 2006, the circuit court denied Bailey timely

Bailey's amended and supplemental motions.

appealed the circuit court's denial of her motions for a TRO and preliminary injunction pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a) (188 Ill. 2d R. 307(a)). ANALYSIS I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Bailey raises only one issue before this court, to wit, subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court in the instant case. Bailey specifically argues that the circuit court acted

beyond its power by temporarily suspending Bailey's power of attorney and appointing Williams temporary guardian of Wilson and the court failed to comply with section 11a-18(e) of the Probate Act, which confers jurisdiction on the circuit court to hear the

10

1-06-2115 matter brought by Williams. We disagree and find that this case

raises a question of Illinois subject matter jurisdiction jurisprudence that merits revisiting Illinois law on the issue. Bailey cites to In re Hatsuye T., 293 Ill. App. 3d 1046 (1997), for the proposition that the circuit court's failure to comply with the requirements of various sections the Probate Act and the Power of Attorney Act deprives the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction. Bailey characterizes the

requirements of article 11a of the Probate Act and section 2-10 of the Power of Attorney Act, based on In re Hatsuye T., as conditions precedent to a court's exercise of jurisdiction. re Hatsuye T., 293 Ill. App. 3d at 1053. In

The issue concerning

the authority of a circuit court to properly exercise subject matter jurisdiction has been explained in detail by our supreme court in Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (2002), and in our view, conflicts with our decision in In re Hatsuye T., 293 Ill. App. 3d at 1053. In Belleville Toyota, our supreme court's intent was to clarify the question of subject matter jurisdiction as it relates to article VI,

Download In re: Estate of Wilson.pdf