Bjork v. O'Meara
2013 IL 114044
Ill.2013Background
- Bjork sued O'Meara for intentional interference with a testamentary expectancy arising from Dama's plan to name Bjork the pay-on-death beneficiary of a Northern Trust account.
- probate proceedings admitted Dama's will, and O'Meara was appointed independent representative; Bjork did not contest the will.
- Bjork sought information and sought to depose a Northern Trust employee; circuit court denied deposition, limiting probate relief.
- The circuit court dismissed as time-barred under the six-month will-contest period (755 ILCS 5/8-1) and the appellate court affirmed.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding the tort claim is not barred by the will-contest limitations where probate relief is inadequate and the claim does not seek to invalidate the will.
- The case remanded for further proceedings to determine the merits of Bjork's tort claim against O'Meara
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the six-month will-contest period bars the tort claim | Bjork should survive because probate relief was inadequate | Will-contest period precludes any related tort claim | Not barred; tort claim permissible under proper facts |
| Whether Bjork could obtain probate-relief through discovery/citation | Citation proceedings could provide needed information | Deposition not available through probate process | Circuit court erred in denying deposition; probate relief insufficient |
| Whether the court properly limited discovery in probate proceedings | Bjork needed Williams's testimony to prove intent | Witness deposition not within court's authority | Error in denying deposition; tort claim remains viable |
| Whether Ellis/Robinson distinction applies to bar tort claim | Ellis allows tort when not seeking to invalidate will | Robinson bars tort when will-contest available | Robinson/ Ellis distinguished; Bjork's claim not barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. First State Bank of Monticello, 97 Ill. 2d 174 (Ill. 1983) (tort-not available where will contest available; concerns of second bite at apple)
- Estate of Ellis, 236 Ill. 2d 45 (Ill. 2009) (tort allowed where probate relief not meaningfully available to plaintiff)
- In re Estate of Hoover, 160 Ill. App. 3d 964 (Ill. App. 1987) (recognizes distinction between will-contest and tort action for expectancy)
- In re Estate of Knowlson, 204 Ill. App. 3d 454 (Ill. App. 1990) (affirms limits on torts when will contest available)
- In re Estate of Roeseler, 287 Ill. App. 3d 1003 (Ill. App. 1997) (discusses when probate relief suffices)
- Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343 (Ill. 2008) (de novo review standard for 2-619/2-615 matters)
- Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148 (Ill. 2012) (defines scope of 2-619.1 combining 2-615/2-619)
- King v. First Capital Financial Services Corp., 215 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2005) (articulates standards for 2-619.1 analysis)