In re Estate of Lashmett

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2007 » In re Estate of Lashmett

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-06-0407 Rel

Case Date: 01/09/2007

Preview:NO. 4-06-0407 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT In re: the Estate of MARCELLA T. LASHMETT, Deceased, CHERYL LASHMETT THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CHRISTINE LASHMETT MONTGOMERY, Respondent-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Filed 1/9/07

Appeal from Circuit Court of Scott County No. 00P4 Honorable James W. Day, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal arises from a citation to discover assets filed by the executor of the estate of Marcella T. Lashmett. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the respondent to the citation proceedings was indebted to the estate and entered judgment in favor of the estate. I. BACKGROUND Marcella T. Lashmett died testate on December 19, 1999. Her heirs at law were her two daughters, Cheryl Lashmett Thomas and Christine Lashmett Montgomery. The will named Christine as We affirm.

executor, but as the named executor took no action to open an estate, Cheryl filed a petition to admit the will to probate and was appointed as personal representative. She commenced citation The order at

proceedings against her sister shortly thereafter.

issue here is the result of an amended citation to discover assets filed on December 16, 2005.

During her lifetime, Marcella was engaged in the business of farming with her husband, who predeceased her. Christine also was engaged in farming. At some point, after the

demise of Marcella's husband and prior to Marcella's death, Christine frequently borrowed farm equipment belonging to Marcella. On more than one occasion, Marcella's farm equipment

was used as a trade-in on the purchase of new equipment titled in Christine's name alone. As each transaction was completed,

Christine and her mother would agree on an amount of monetary compensation to be paid by Christine to Marcella. This course of

dealing was established not only by the evidence adduced at the hearing on the citation but also by the provisions of Marcella's last will and testament executed on March 20, 1998. Article III of Marcella's will described the course of dealings had between she and Christine: "THIRD: FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT: At my death, I may own certain items of farm machinery and equipment which my late husband, James Lashmett, Jr., and I have used in our previous farming operation. I have

allowed my daughter, Christine Lashmett Montgomery, to use this machinery in her farming operation. Also, I have periodically

consented to allow the said Christine - 2 -

Lashmett Montgomery to trade various items of said farm machinery and equipment for new equipment which she has purchased for her own farming operation and in her own name, and I have received the fair market value of my machinery traded for newer machinery and equipment. In each of these said trades, I

have realized the full market value of said machinery and equipment as it was disposed of by me in said trades. In the event that I

still own any item of farm machinery and equipment at my death, I hereby bequeath unto Christine Lashmett Montgomery, any and all items of said farm machinery and equipment; provided, however, that in the event the said Christine Lashmett Montgomery disposes of or trades any such item or items of farm machinery and equipment, as determined by the said Christine Lashmett Montgomery, in the sale or trade, shall be divided equally between my two daughters, Cheryl Lashmett Thomas and Christine Lashmett Montgomery, per stirpes." In 1993, Marcella suffered health problems requiring - 3 -

her hospitalization. At that time, she gave a power of attorney to Christine. On September 28, 1997, Marcella subsequently

executed a new power of attorney in favor of Christine, including a power for health care. The evidence does not show that

Christine ever used either powers of attorney except to pay her mother's bills during the times Marcella was hospitalized. In September 1999, some three months before Marcella's death, Christine used a tractor belonging to Marcella as a tradein for the purchase by Christine of a new tractor. credit generated was $55,296.28. The trade-in

No money was paid to Marcella.

Christine testified that she tried to pay her mother $20,000 for the use of the tractor as a trade-in and, in fact, provided at the hearing on the citation a check in that amount marked "void." Christine testified she voided the check after Marcella refused any payment for the old tractor. The trial court granted the citation and, after hearing evidence, found that Christine was indebted to the estate in the amount of $55,296.28. Christine's motion for reconsideration was denied. This appeal followed. II. ANALYSIS Christine raises the following issues for review: (1) whether the citation was filed outside the applicable statute of limitations; (2) whether the citation improperly sought to recover a debt; (3) whether the decision of the trial court was - 4 -

against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) whether the trial court erred in ordering Christine to pay a sum certain into the estate rather than awarding the estate an interest in the tractor. As to issues one, two, and four, our review is de novo See

as resolution of them involves purely questions of law.

Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Marchwiany, 222 Ill. 2d 472, 476, 856 N.E.2d 439, 441 (2006). weight standard is applied. As to issue three, a manifest-

See White v. Raines, 215 Ill. App.

3d 49, 60, 574 N.E.2d 272, 280 (1991). Before addressing each of respondent's arguments on appeal, it is helpful to set forth some basic principles of probate law and practice. While Illinois has codified the laws

of descent and distribution, as well as the procedures for the administration of decedents' estates in the Probate Act of 1975 (Probate Act) (755 ILCS 5/1-1 through 30-3 (West 2004)), the relationship between the court, the estate, and the parties was known at common law. We rely on those principles to understand

both the relationship between the court and the parties as well as the inherent powers and duties of each. The circuit court, sitting in probate, performs the duties of a probate court as the same was known prior to the adoption of the judicial article effective January 1, 1964. See

Ill. Const. 1870, art. VI,

Download In re Estate of Lashmett.pdf