Craig v. Zink
2016 IL App (4th) 150939
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Rebecca Craig died intestate in July 2014; her daughter Deborah was appointed administratrix of the estate.
- Claimant Steven Zink filed a written claim against the estate in February 2015 seeking $188,660.70 for alleged caretaker services, home maintenance, and car payments.
- The estate moved to dismiss and filed counterclaims seeking remuneration for domestic services (quantum meruit / implied contract) and a share of funeral expenses; procedural disputes followed over pleading form and timing.
- Trial court struck the estate’s amended affirmative defenses and dismissed its second amended counterclaim with prejudice, applying Civil Code pleading standards to probate pleadings.
- The estate appealed, arguing probate proceedings should be evaluated under relaxed pleading standards and, alternatively, it should have been granted leave to further amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civil Code strict pleading rules apply to replies, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims in probate claim proceedings | Estate: probate pleadings are governed by more relaxed standards; section 18-2 requires only written notice of nature of claim | Zink: Probate Act incorporates Civil Code (section 1-6), so strict Civil Code pleading requirements apply | Reversed: probate replies/defenses/counterclaims should be evaluated under relaxed probate standards rather than strict Civil Code pleading rules |
| Whether the estate’s amended affirmative defenses were legally insufficient | Estate: defenses were adequately stated for probate proceedings and gave notice | Zink: defenses lacked the factual specificity required by Civil Code §2-613(d) | Court vacated strike (trial court had erred applying strict Civil Code standard); no ruling on merits — remanded |
| Whether the estate’s second amended counterclaim failed to state a cause of action (quantum meruit / implied contract / oral contract) | Estate: counterclaim pleaded sufficient facts for probate context and notice to claimant | Zink: counterclaim was conclusory, mixed inconsistent theories, and lacked necessary factual allegations | Court vacated dismissal (trial court applied wrong standard); remanded without deciding merits |
| Whether leave to amend should have been required before dismissal with prejudice | Estate: even if technical defects existed, court should have allowed further amendment | Zink: argued Civil Code governed and pleadings were deficient | Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with relaxed probate pleading standard; did not address specific leave-to-amend disposition — reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Andernovics, 197 Ill. 2d 500 (2001) (Probate Act overseer role; clarified Brauns does not broadly require Civil Practice Act pleading standards for probate replies)
- Sheetz v. Morgan, 98 Ill. App. 3d 794 (1981) (claims against estates need not plead a formal cause of action)
- In re Estate of Sarron, 317 Ill. App. 3d 402 (2000) (probate pleadings evaluated under relaxed standards; statute of limitations defense considered despite not being specially pleaded)
- In re Estate of Brauns, 330 Ill. App. 322 (1947) (historically cited for applying strict pleading rules to probate, but distinguished by later authority)
- In re Estate of Piper, 59 Ill. App. 3d 325 (1978) (proceedings for allowance of claims are informal; laypersons may file claims)