Faville v. Burns
960 N.E.2d 99
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Barbara Faville's father Martin Burns died in 1939, leaving a will that created three trusts, including Barbara's trust.
- Barbara appointed Martin as trustee of her trust in 1978; their relationship later deteriorated and Barbara sought his removal and replacement by American Bank in 2009, which Martin refused.
- Barbara adopted Andrew and William Faville in Florida on May 5, 2009; their amended birth certificates reflected Barbara as adoptive mother, while Martin had been the sole remainderman before the adoptions.
- Barbara filed a 2010 declaratory judgment action seeking authority to remove Martin and to declare Andrew and William as Barbara's descendants for trust purposes; Barbara died on February 28, 2010, after which Andrew and William continued the suit.
- Plaintiffs sought removal of Martin for good cause based on alleged fiduciary breaches and a conflict of interest due to Martin’s contingent remainderman status; Martin moved to strike under 735 ILCS 5/2-615, and the trial court granted.
- The appellate court reversed to consider whether the relevant Probate Act provisions apply to determine descendants and whether removal for conflict of interest should proceed, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2-4(a) or 2-4(f) governs descendants under the trust. | Faville argues 2-4(f) applies because instrument predates 1955. | Burns contends 2-4(a) applies as more specific and controlling. | 2-4(f) applies to determine descendants under the trust. |
| Whether Martin should be removed as trustee for good cause due to conflict of interest. | Faville contends Martin’s contingent remainderman status creates a fatal conflict with beneficiaries. | Burns argues no breach or disqualifying conflict and discretion should be respected. | Sufficient allegations to state a conflict-of-interest claim; count II should proceed. |
| Whether the prudent investor rule supports removal or affects trustee conduct. | Faville asserts Martin failed to maximize investment returns, violating prudent investor rule. | Burns asserts no obligation to maximize income and no clear abuse of discretion. | No breach shown; prudent investor rule not satisfied as a matter of law; no removal on this basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beretta U.S.A. Corp. v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill.2d 351 (Ill. 2004) (statutory interpretation and harmonization principles applicable)
- Chandler v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 207 Ill.2d 331 (Ill. 2005) (de novo review of 2-615 motions)
- In re Estate of Roller, 377 Ill.App.3d 572 (Ill. App. 2007) (section 2-4(f) presumption for adoptees under instruments)
- Yates v. Yates, 255 Ill. 66 (Ill. 1912) (contingent remainderman removal potential)
- Lorenz v. Weller, 267 Ill. 230 (Ill. 1915) (removal of trustee due to conflicts between remainder and life interests)
- Laubner v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 386 Ill.App.3d 457 (Ill. App. 2008) (trustee discretion and removal standards)
- In re Estate of Hawley, 183 Ill.App.3d 107 (Ill. App. 1989) (fiduciary duties and self-dealing principle)
- Cross v. Cross, 177 Ill.App.3d 588 (Ill. App. 1988) (adult adoption for inheritance purposes substantiation)
- First National Bank of Chicago v. King, 165 Ill.2d 533 (Ill. 1995) (interpretation of inheritance rights under instruments)