In re Estate of Holms, 2019 IL App (2d) 190139

Catherine Holms and James Holms married in 2014; Catherine had two adult children (Tracy and Scott) from a prior marriage.
The parties entered a judgment for legal separation on January 20, 2017 incorporating a property settlement agreement (PSA) described as "final and non‑modifiable." The PSA allocated property as each party’s "sole and exclusive property," provided a mutual release of claims, and bound the parties’ heirs and representatives.
Under the PSA James paid Catherine $180,000 in exchange for her quitclaim of any interest in the marital home and her waiver of maintenance; the PSA broadly released claims "including all rights and claims in and to any property * now owned or which may hereafter be acquired by either of them."
In February 2017 Catherine purchased a home in her name alone for $116,000 (she used the PSA settlement funds) and died intestate on May 28, 2018.
James filed for probate and letters of administration claiming spouse/heir status; Tracy (Catherine’s daughter) counterpetitioned arguing the PSA waived James’s inheritance rights. The trial court found James was a spouse and heir; Tracy appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding the PSA evidenced an intent to waive statutory spousal inheritance rights and therefore James was not an heir for purposes of Catherine’s estate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Tracy)	Defendant's Argument (James)	Held
Whether the PSA waived James’s statutory right to a surviving‑spouse award / inheritance	PSA language (final, mutual release, "sole and exclusive property," paragraph H) shows parties intended to fully settle all property rights, including inheritance; PSA binds heirs and permits enforcement by Tracy	PSA lacks explicit, operative language about death or waiver of inheritance; release section refers only to matters occurring prior to execution, so post‑PSA acquisitions (Catherine’s later home) are not covered; paragraph H is a non‑operative "whereas"	Waiver upheld: court finds PSA (operative terms + release + paragraph H) evidence intent to relinquish spousal inheritance rights; James is not an heir
Whether property acquired after the PSA (Catherine’s Volo home) falls within the PSA release	The PSA expressly covers "now owned or which may hereafter be acquired" and parties intended final adjudication of property rights arising from the marriage	The release’s limiting phrase ("prior to the date of the execution") and the trial court’s on‑the‑record wording ("owned by the parties today") show intent to exclude future acquisitions	Court holds later‑acquired property is covered: the PSA’s plain language and the overall scheme show the parties intended to release future property rights as well

Laleman v. Crombez, 6 Ill. 2d 194 (Ill. 1955) (spouses may validly release inchoate inheritance/dower rights by agreement)
In re Marriage of Dundas, 355 Ill. App. 3d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (contract‑principles govern marital settlement agreements)
In re Marriage of Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d 160 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (unambiguous agreement language controls intent)
Allton v. Hintzsche, 373 Ill. App. 3d 708 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (ambiguity exists only when language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation)
Rich v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 226 Ill. 2d 359 (Ill. 2007) (contract provisions must be read as a whole)
In re Estate of Brosseau, 176 Ill. App. 3d 450 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (postnuptial agreement language barring claims including dower/courtesy can bar surviving spouse award)
In re Estate of Cullen, 66 Ill. App. 2d 217 (Ill. App. Ct. 1965) (specific death‑reference language not required where agreement shows intent to bar spousal award)
Aramony v. United Way of Am., 254 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 2001) ("whereas" clauses inform purpose but do not create operative rights)