DeHart v. DeHart
2013 IL 114137
Ill.2013Background
- Plaintiff James Thomas DeHart filed a six-count second-amended complaint challenging Donald M. DeHart's December 4, 2006 will, individually and as executor, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraudulent inducement, tortious interference with economic expectancy, contract to adopt, and equitable adoption, and sought deposition of the drafting attorney.
- The circuit court dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice and denied deposition of attorney Peters.
- Appellate Court reversed the dismissal of counts I–IV and VI and denied deposition; count V (contract to adopt) was affirmed by most but not all justices.
- This Court granted leave to appeal and held that several counts survived 2-615 challenges, recognizing lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, contract to adopt, and equitable adoption, and allowing deposition issues to proceed.
- The opinion discusses whether a spouse can be a presumptively undue influence recipient, the standards for equitable adoption, and the attorney-client privilege in the will-contest context.
- The decision remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lack of testamentary capacity | DeHart held plaintiff as son; thus lacks capacity exists. | Testator understood his wealth and named beneficiaries; capacity present. | Yes; plaintiff sufficiently alleged lack of testamentary capacity. |
| Undue influence | Fiduciary relationship and misrepresentations show coercion. | No improper influence established; witnesses attest sound mind. | Yes; undue influence claim survives. |
| Fraudulent inducement | Defendant’s misrepresentations induced the will. | No causative misrepresentations proven at pleading stage. | Premature; permissible to proceed pending will contest resolution. |
| Contract to adopt | Monahan supports existence of contract to adopt inferred from conduct. | No explicit contract; insufficient pleading. | Count for contract to adopt survives. |
| Equitable adoption | Equitable adoption supported by intent and lifelong holding out as child. | Equitable adoption not recognized without contract evidence. | Count VI survives with narrow, Ford-like standard of proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Bible Society v. Price, 115 Ill. 623 (Ill. 1886) (testamentary capacity elements and memory impliedness)
- Dowie v. Sutton, 227 Ill. 183 (Ill. 1907) (testamentary capacity requires knowing property, objects, and effect of will)
- Sterling v. Dubin, 6 Ill. 2d 64 (Ill. 1955) (deliberate memory and capacity standards for testamentary capacity)
- Monahan v. Monahan, 14 Ill. 2d 449 (Ill. 1958) (contract-to-adopt evidentiary sufficiency; clear and convincing standard in later stages)
- In re Estate of Glogovsek, 248 Ill. App. 3d 784 (Ill. App. 3d 1993) (presumption of undue influence in marital contexts discussed; limits on application)
- Ford v. Ford, 82 P.3d 747 (Cal. 2004) (equitable adoption requires intent to adopt and ongoing familial relationship; approach influential for Illinois")