In re Estate of Baumgarten, 2012 IL App (1st) 112155

Petitioners allege a fiduciary relationship between Robert and Marlene Baumgarten during Robert’s final illness.
Robert relied on Marlene for daily necessities (transportation, meals, medications) as his health declined.
Petitioners claim Marlene dominated Robert’s finances and estate planning, coercing amendments to the trust and will.
They allege Marlene subjected Robert to verbal abuse and fear, enabling her control over his decisions.
The circuit court dismissed the petition for failing to plead a fiduciary relationship and dependent-dominant relationship; the appellate court affirms.
The court addresses pleadings standards for undue influence and determines the facts do not establish a prima facie case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a fiduciary relationship existed between Robert and Marlene	Baumgarten claims Marlene managed Robert’s finances	Marlene contends no fiduciary relation shown	No fiduciary relationship pled adequately
Whether Robert was in a dependent situation with Marlene in a dominant role	Dependence and Marlene’s dominance shown by care and control	Allegations insufficient to show dominance in a dependent testator	Not pled with requisite specificity; insufficient to establish undue influence
Whether the petition states a legally recognizable claim for undue influence	Facts show coercion and control by Marlene	Pleadings rely on conclusions, not specific facts	Dismissal proper; claims failed under pleading standards

In re Estate of Glogovsek, 248 Ill. App. 3d 784 (1993) (dominance must be shown by specific facts; mere caregiving not enough)
In re Estate of Julian, 227 Ill. App. 3d 369 (1991) (pleading must allege manner of free-will impairment)
In re Estate of Sutera, 199 Ill. App. 3d 531 (1990) (conclusory statements insufficient; must show how influence operated)
Lipchick v. Lipchick, 27 Ill. App. 3d 331 (1975) (support for undue-influence pleading; but not detailed facts here)