In re Estate of Boyar
986 N.E.2d 1170
Ill.2013Background
- Decedent Robert E. Boyar died May 19, 2010; his will funded a revocable living trust established in 1983 with Decedent and Patricia as trustees.
- Trust amendments occurred in 1997, 2000, and a sixth amendment in April 2010 naming Dixon as cotrustee/successor.
- After Decedent’s death, his five children, including Robert, divided tangible personal property as provided by the trust.
- Dixon, as cotrustee under the sixth amendment, demanded itemization and asserted ownership of trust assets; Robert responded by detailing his share and asserting challenges to the sixth amendment.
- Robert filed a petition September 10, 2010 challenging the sixth amendment’s validity on undue influence and lack of capacity; Dixon moved to dismiss under the doctrine of election and related theories.
- The circuit court dismissed Robert’s petition; the appellate court affirmed; the Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the election doctrine did not apply here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the doctrine of election applies to living trust amendments. | Robert—application not extended to trusts. | Dixon—doctrine extends to trusts serving the will’s function. | Not applicable; doctrine not extended. |
| If applicable, do any exceptions save Robert’s challenge? | Exceptions would permit contest despite acceptance. | No applicable exceptions under Illinois precedent. | No need to decide; doctrine not invoked. |
| Does accepting a share of personal property from the trust bar challenges to the sixth amendment? | Acceptance does not equate to election to challenge the amendment. | Acceptance indicates an election to accept benefits. | Acceptance did not bar the challenge; remand necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carper v. Crowl, 149 Ill. 465 (Ill. 1894) (origin of the election doctrine; two inconsistent rights required)
- Lloyd v. Treasurer of the State, 401 Ill. 520 (Ill. 1948) (definition of election under a will)
- Bell v. Nye, 255 Ill. 283 (Ill. 1912) (election requires a plurality of gifts; choice to exclude other rights)
- Remillard v. Remillard, 6 Ill. 2d 567 (Ill. 1955) (early development of election doctrine in Illinois)
- Oglesby v. Springfield Marine Bank, 395 Ill. 37 (Ill. 1946) (election doctrine applied in related contexts)
- Ness v. Lunde, 394 Ill. 286 (Ill. 1946) (election principles in Illinois precedent)
- Tilton v. Tilton, 382 Ill. 426 (Ill. 1943) (pre-modern articulation of election concepts)
- Brown v. Pitney, 39 Ill. 468 (Ill. 1866) (classic statement of election semantics)