Epstein v. Bochko, 2017 IL App (1st) 160641

Anna Polchanin, a 95-year-old, executed a joint bank account at Selfreliance on May 31, 2008; much of her life savings (> $300,000) was later deposited and > $250,000 was wired from that joint account to Ukraine.
Two caregivers, Bochko and Shchudlo, obtained powers of attorney and opened the joint account; Bochko was later convicted of elder abuse and Shchudlo fled the country.
In October 2008 a psychiatrist (Dr. Shaw) evaluated Anna and concluded she suffered from dementia that had existed for years, but he could not opine on how she appeared on May 31, 2008.
The Cook County public guardian (later public administrator) sued, alleging (inter alia) that the account agreement was void because Anna lacked capacity and sought rescission and return of funds from Selfreliance.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Selfreliance, finding no evidence the credit union knew or should have known of Anna’s incapacity when she opened the account; the public administrator appealed only the rescission claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the joint account agreement should be rescinded for lack of Anna’s capacity	Anna was incompetent when the account was opened; contract is voidable and should be rescinded	Selfreliance had no notice of incompetency, dealt directly with Anna in good faith, and may rely on presumption of sanity	Court held rescission improper: no genuine fact dispute that Selfreliance knew or should have known of incapacity; summary judgment for defendant affirmed
Whether defendant’s knowledge of incapacity is irrelevant to rescission	Knowledge is irrelevant; loss should fall on the bank because an incompetent person must be protected	Bank’s knowledge is relevant; precedent requiring relief against third parties applies only in particular circumstances (e.g., grantee received benefit)	Court held knowledge is relevant; prior cases cited do not require banks to reimburse where bank acted in good faith and dealt with the incompetent person directly

Jordan v. Kirkpatrick, 251 Ill. 116 (superseding court doctrine permitting rescission where an insane grantor receives no benefit)
Williams v. Williams, 265 Ill. 64 (clarifying rescission rule when the insane grantor receives no benefit)
Walton v. Malcolm, 264 Ill. 389 (contract with insane person in good faith and without advantage is valid)
In re Estate of Elias, 408 Ill. App. 3d 301 (discussing presumption of sanity and reliance by third parties)
In re Estate of Trahey, 25 Ill. App. 3d 727 (joint-account case placing fault on the joint tenant who abused account; bank not held liable)