Imogene Rodgers filed a petition challenging the will of Levi E. Schlenker in thecircuit court of Union County, Illinois. The executor filed a motion to dismiss the petition,claiming that Imogene was not an "interested person" and lacked standing to contest the will. The circuit court granted the motion and Imogene appealed.

Levi E. Schlenker (the testator) died on July 16, 2001. He was survived by two adultchildren, Troy Schlenker and Imogene Rodgers, and two grandchildren of a deceased son. The testator allegedly executed four wills within the decade prior to his death. The wills aredated as follows: February 14, 1990, December 9, 1993, September 16, 1998, and January4, 2001.

On August 22, 2001, the circuit court entered an order admitting the 2001 will toprobate. Troy Schlenker was appointed to serve as the executor of the estate of Levi E.Schlenker, deceased. Imogene Rodgers filed a petition challenging the 2001 will on thegrounds that the testator had been impaired by a variety of physical and mental conditions,including chronic illnesses, and had lacked the mental capacity to make decisions regardingthe disposition of his estate and property. The executor filed a motion to dismiss pursuantto section 2-619(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a) (West 2000)) alleging that Imogene lacked standing to challenge the will. In support of the motion, theexecutor argued that the testator had executed three wills prior to the 2001 will; thatImogene was not a legatee under any of the prior wills; that even if she successfullychallenges the 2001 will, she would not stand to benefit under any of the prior wills, whichshe has not challenged; and that therefore she is not an interested person with standing tocontest the 2001 will. Imogene countered that she, as a disinherited heir at law, has standingto challenge the 2001 will; that the 2001 will is the only will that has been admitted toprobate; and that challenges to the validity of prior wills cannot be undertaken until the 2001will is declared invalid.

In order to have standing to contest a will, the petitioner must have an existing, direct,pecuniary interest that would be detrimentally affected by the probate of the proffered will. See 755 ILCS 5/1-2.11 (West 1992); Kelley v. First State Bank of Princeton, 81 Ill. App. 3d402, 413, 401 N.E.2d 247, 255 (1980). Stated differently, the petitioner must be one whois affected detrimentally by being deprived of a right he or she would have otherwise hadin the absence of the will. Selden v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 239 Ill. 67, 79, 87 N.E.860, 864 (1909). One who has an interest under a prior will may maintain a suit to contesta later will that reduced his or her interest. Adams v. First Methodist Episcopal Church ofIrving Park, 251 Ill. 268, 270-71, 96 N.E. 253, 254 (1911); Wilson v. Bell, 315 Ill. App. 418,43 N.E.2d 162 (1942). Similarly, a disinherited heir at law stands to inherit a portion of adecedent's estate if it should be determined that the estate is to be distributed under the lawsof intestacy, and a disinherited heir at law has an existing interest that would bedetrimentally affected by the probate of a decedent's will. See In re Estate of Lipchik, 27 Ill.App. 3d 331, 335-36, 326 N.E.2d 464, 468 (1975).

In instances where a testator did not dispose of all of his property through the termsof his will or where his will is declared invalid, the property passes to his heirs at law underthe laws of intestacy, even if he had stated his intention to disinherit one or more of thoseheirs as one of the terms of his will. It has long been held that heirs cannot be disinheritedmerely by a declaration that they shall not have anything. In re Estate of Cancik, 106 Ill. 2d11, 18, 476 N.E.2d 738, 741 (1985). "No matter how strong the intention of the testator maybe to disinherit an heir, the intention cannot be given any effect as to intestate property, andthe only method of disinheriting him is to give the property to some one [sic] else." Tea v.Millen, 257 Ill. 624, 628-29, 101 N.E. 209, 211 (1913).

In this case, Imogene, the daughter of the testator and an heir at law, is a disinheritedheir under the 2001 will. She would take directly if it should be determined that the estateis to be distributed as an intestate estate. We recognize that the estate may submit one ormore of the prior wills for probate should the 2001 will be declared invalid. Imogene hasindicated that she intends to challenge each in turn. We do not find that her interest isremote or otherwise nonexistent merely because she may be required to contest the 2001 willand three prior wills before she is entitled to succeed to the testator's estate. In terms of theright to take by intestacy, each time a disinherited heir successfully challenges the validityof a will, that heir is thereby benefited. Until all will contests are decided, it cannot be saidthat Imogene is not an interested party. See In re Estate of Lipchik, 27 Ill. App. 3d at 335-36, 326 N.E.2d at 468 (the disinherited heir at law was a person interested in the estate andhad standing to participate in a proceeding to set aside the decedent's will); In re Estate ofMalcolm, 234 Ill. App. 3d 962, 602 N.E.2d 41 (1992) (the legatees under all three wills werefound to be "interested persons" and to have standing to contest the third (most recentlydated) will even though they would have received the same amount under the second will,where the legatees anticipated a contest of the second will once the third will was invalidatedand where they would have received substantially less under the third will than under thefirst will).

Eventually, Imogene may have to prove that a number of wills are invalid. However,

in this case, based on the state of the pleadings, she need only show that the 2001 will isinvalid. Should she succeed, the laws of intestacy will apply unless and until the estatesubmits one or more of the prior wills for probate. While judicial economy may be bestserved if the 2001 will and all prior wills are considered successively in a single action, wedo not intend to direct litigation decisions for the parties.

We note that the estate cited In re Estate of Keener, 167 Ill. App. 3d 270, 521 N.E.2d232 (1988), in support of its position. That case involves a collateral heir and presents afactual situation that is not analogous to the present case.

In this case, the trial court erred in finding that Imogene did not have standing tocontest the will in this probate action. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the causeremanded for further proceedings.

Reversed; cause remanded.

HOPKINS, P.J., and GOLDENHERSH, J., concur.

Opinion Filed: May 2, 2003

Justices: Honorable Gordon E. Maag, J.

Honorable Terrence J. Hopkins, P.J., and

Honorable Richard P. Goldenhersh, J.,

Concur

Attorney Patrick M. McCann, McCann & Associates, 115 South 15th Street,

for Murphysboro, IL 62966

Appellant

Attorney Richard Kruger, Kruger, Henry & Hunter, 110 W. 5th Street, P.O. Box 568,

for Metropolis, IL 62960

Appellees