2018 IL App (2d) 171041
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- In December 2011 Harry G. Doyle Jr. executed a revocable living trust and a will drafted by defendants (Thomas B. Hood and his firm); the living trust created a Supplemental (special‑needs) Trust for Harry’s wife Patricia.
- Harry died January 14, 2012; Michael A. Doyle became trustee of the Living Trust and Supplemental Trust and later sued as trustee alleging defendants’ malpractice in using a living trust rather than a testamentary trust, which caused Medicaid penalty exposure for Patricia.
- Patricia applied for long‑term‑care benefits effective April 1, 2014; DHS ultimately assessed a penalty (final administrative decision Aug. 26, 2016) requiring payment from the Supplemental Trust.
- Michael sued defendants on May 1, 2017 as trustee, alleging the drafting caused a penalty because the Supplemental Trust was treated as created by Patricia (triggering the look‑back rules) rather than as a testamentary special‑needs trust.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/13‑214.3(d), arguing subsection (d)’s two‑year repose (measured from decedent’s death) barred the suit; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of §13‑214.3(d) two‑year repose (injury upon client’s death) | Injury occurred when Living Trust was drafted (Dec 15, 2011) or at latest when DHS penalty was imposed in 2016; suit within six‑year repose so subsection (c) should apply | Injury occurred upon Harry’s death (Jan 14, 2012); subsection (d) therefore applies and plaintiff had to file within two years of death | Subsection (d) applies: injury occurred upon Harry’s death when the trust became irrevocable and was funded; claim untimely |
| Whether plaintiff (trustee) may rely on nonclient beneficiary’s disability tolling under §13‑214.3(e) | Patricia was the injured party and is disabled; tolling applies until disability removed | The trust (through trustee Michael) is the real plaintiff; trustee is not disabled and controls suit; (e) does not apply | (e) does not apply; plaintiff is trustee (not a disabled person entitled to sue) |
| Whether Patricia was a client (so death not trigger) or a person for whom services were rendered under §13‑214.3(d) | Defendants drafted estate plan for both Harry and Patricia; Patricia was a client and alive, so (d) shouldn’t trigger | Harry was the client; documents were prepared for Harry; (d) focuses on the person for whom services were rendered (the client) | Harry was the client; (d) focuses on death of client, so (d) governs |
| Whether earlier Supreme Court cases (Landau/Eastman) control timing of injury | Injuries are the pecuniary loss and thus occurred only when DHS imposed penalty (Aug 2016) | Supreme Court precedent interpreting §13‑214.3 (Wackrow, Snyder, etc.) controls timing; injury may be death‑triggered | Followed controlling supreme court precedent (Wackrow, Snyder): injury here was death‑triggered; minority views irrelevant |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49 (discusses statute of repose concept)
- Wackrow v. Niemi, 231 Ill. 2d 418 (holds §13‑214.3(d) exception applies instead of two‑year limitation and six‑year repose when injury occurs at client’s death)
- Snyder v. Heidelberger, 2011 IL 111052 (clarifies when injury occurs for repose purposes; six‑year repose can bar claims where injury is immediate)
- Poullette v. Silverstein, 328 Ill. App. 3d 791 (applied repose/restriction analysis to disputes over probate timing)
- Mega v. Holy Cross Hospital, 111 Ill. 2d 416 (discusses consequences of repose provisions)