In re Estate of Boyar
2012 IL App (1st) 111013
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Robert A. Boyar petitioned to contest the sixth amendment to his father's trust.
- Circuit court dismissed the petition under the doctrine of election, barring contest to the trust.
- Sixth amendment appointed Dixon as sole cotrustee and successor trustee; no other changes to the trust were made.
- Robert admitted receiving 14 items from the trust as a partial distribution of his interest.
- Petition alleged lack of mental capacity, undue influence, and fiduciary breach by Dixon in appointing himself trustee.
- Issueings arose in probate proceedings after decedent’s death, with Dixon seeking asset discovery and Robert challenging the amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does election apply to trusts as well as wills? | Boyar argues election does not apply to trusts. | Dixon contends election applies to trusts as a will substitute. | Election applies to trusts; petition properly dismissed. |
| Was Robert's receipt of trust property an impermissible benefit to trigger election? | Boyar claims the property was nominal and not an adequate benefit. | Dixon argues any benefit triggers election regardless of value. | Receipt of property constituted a sufficient benefit to trigger election. |
| Do exceptions to the doctrine of election apply here? | Robert seeks exceptions for full knowledge or legal/public policy grounds. | Dixon asserts exceptions do not apply given the facts and timing. | No applicable exceptions; election barred challenge. |
| Can severability of the trust affect the outcome given the election ruling? | Robert argues severability could save portions of the trust if sixth amendment invalid. | Dixon contends election prevents severability analysis. | Severability issue not reached due to election bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kyker v. Kyker, 117 Ill. App. 3d 547 (1983) (election doctrine; acceptance bars conflicting claims)
- In re Estate of Joffe, 143 Ill. App. 3d 438 (1986) (elective bar; cannot contest while accepting benefits)
- In re Estate of King, 245 Ill. App. 3d 1088 (1993) (timeliness of tender; late tender ineffective)
- Holzbaugh v. Detroit Bank & Trust Co., 124 N.W.2d 267 (Mich. 1963) (election applies to trusts)
- In re Beglinger Trust, 561 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997) (trust beneficiaries barred after accepting benefits)
- Handelsman v. Handelsman, 366 Ill. App. 3d 1122 (2006) (will substitutes construed like wills; election context)