Dixon v. Weitekamp-Diller
2012 IL App (4th) 120209
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Three trusts (Franklin Farm Trust, William H. Diller, Sr. Trust, Ida Payne Trust) hold life estates to Hughes with remainder to his descendants; upon Hughes’ death, estates intended to vest in his family per stirpes.
- Hughes, a lifelong bachelor, married Barbara Weitekamp in 2004; Barbara served as his bookkeeper/agent and later as Florida trustee with a Florida-based marriage.
- In 2010, family members filed a complaint seeking replacement of trustees and declaratory relief amid concerns about Barbara’s control over Hughes; shortly after, Hughes adopted Barbara’s adult daughters in Florida.
- The trial court found the Florida adoptions were a sham/subterfuge to make Barbara’s daughters heirs under the trusts, and held that the 63-acre tract Hughes purchased in 1992 as Franklin Farm Trust property remained part of that trust; the deed transferring it in 2010 was improper.
- Barbara and her daughters appealed, arguing (i) the probate adoption presumption applies to inheriting under the trusts, and (ii) the 63-acre transfer should not have been deemed part of the Diller Sr. Trust; the appellate court affirmed.
- The court adopted the reasoning from Cross v. Cross to reject the subterfuge used to bypass the trust terms and found the trusts’ intent was to keep the assets within the Diller family.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-amendment adoption law supports inheritance for Barbara’s daughters despite subterfuge | Diller family trusts permit issue via adoptees under the old presumption | Adoption presumption should control absent contrary trust terms | No; subterfuge defeats the adoption presumption. |
| Whether the 63-acre tract remained part of the Franklin Farm/Diller Sr. Trust | Trust terms or deeds support transfer to Barbara | Hughes acted within fiduciary powers; transfer valid | 63 acres remained part of the Franklin Farm Trust; transfer improper. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the facts | No genuine issues of material fact;ing | There are factual disputes about intent and effect | Summary judgment appropriate; trusts’ terms and intent control. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Cross, 177 Ill. App. 3d 588 (1988) (adultees used to subvert trust terms deemed improper)
- Faville v. Burns, 2011 IL App (1st) 110335 (2011) (codification of Cross; subterfuge limitations acknowledged)
- First National Bank of Chicago v. King, 165 Ill. 2d 533 (1995) (adopted child as descendant; distinguishable on subterfuge)
- In re Estate of Roller, 377 Ill. App. 3d 572 (2007) (adopted child’s share without subterfuge; distinguishable fact pattern)
- Dick v. Peoples Mid-Illinois Corp., 242 Ill. App. 3d 297 (1993) (undivided loyalty and fiduciary duties; dual capacity considerations)