Crampton v. Crampton
92 N.E.3d 469
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Ruth Crampton executed a will and revocable living trust on January 2, 2013 naming her son Robert as power of attorney, executor, and trustee; the will devised all personal property to Robert and the residue to the trust.
- Robert lived with Ruth from about 2005 until her death in September 2013, assisted with her healthcare and business affairs, had access to her bank account (including PIN), and shared a joint account to which Ruth alone contributed.
- Plaintiffs (two surviving children and three grandchildren) alleged Robert procured counsel to prepare the estate documents, sat next to Ruth when she executed them, and thereby unduly influenced her to leave him the entire estate.
- After Ruth’s death, Robert, acting as trustee, conveyed trust property to himself and later quitclaimed that property to his brother William; other children and grandchildren received nothing.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under section 2-615 for failure to plead undue influence; the trial court granted dismissal with prejudice. The appellate court reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint pleads sufficient facts to state undue influence | Alleged facts (living together, fiduciary role, access to accounts, procuring counsel, sitting next to Ruth during execution, self-dealing after death) support an undue-influence claim | Complaint contains conclusions and lacks specific details; 2-615 motion proper to dismiss facially deficient pleading | Reversed: the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to state a cause of action for undue influence |
Key Cases Cited
- Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223 (explaining de novo review of 2-615 dismissal)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (scope of a section 2-615 motion challenging legal sufficiency)
- Ferguson v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 94 (accept all well-pled facts and reasonable inferences on 2-615 review)
- Canel v. Topinka, 212 Ill. 2d 311 (plaintiff cannot recover only if it is clear they cannot prove necessary elements)
- Bryson v. News Am. Publ’ns, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77 (plaintiff need not plead details within defendant’s control)
- In re Estate of Hoover, 155 Ill. 2d 402 (definition and framework for undue influence)
- Weiss v. Waterhouse Secs., Inc., 208 Ill. 2d 439 (fact-pleading requirement in Illinois)
- In re Estate of Baumgarten, 2012 IL App (1st) 112155 (analysis distinguishing spousal influence from other fiduciary relationships)