In re Estate of Jagodowski
2017 IL App (2d) 160723
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Decedent Christopher Jagodowski died intestate in January 2016; Joanna Ungstad was born during Christopher’s marriage to Ilona and was a presumed child; Christopher paid child support while Joanna was a minor.
- Joanna petitioned for letters of administration; the court dismissed her petition for lack of U.S. residency and appointed Boguslaw Malara as supervised administrator.
- Boguslaw filed a motion to establish heirship arguing Joanna was not Christopher’s biological daughter and requested DNA testing; the trial court denied the motion on standing and statute-of-limitations grounds and certified two Rule 308 questions to the appellate court.
- Certified Question 1: whether the limitations periods in the Illinois Parentage Act of 2015 apply in probate proceedings to adjudicate parentage for heirship. Certified Question 2: whether an estate administrator (not a parent/child) has standing to seek adjudication of nonexistence of a parent-child relationship (including DNA testing) under the Parentage Act.
- The appellate court held that when parentage is at issue in probate, the Parentage Act applies (including its limitations rules); it declined to answer the standing question as a general matter, explaining standing depends on whether statutory prerequisites (notably 750 ILCS 46/608(b)) are satisfied, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Malara’s Argument | Ungstad’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parentage Act limitations apply in probate heirship disputes | Parentage Act should not control; Probate Act governs heirship timing and Parentage Act limits (e.g., 2-year rule) would wrongly bar post-death heirship claims | Parentage Act governs parentage issues in probate (Poole); its limitations apply when parentage is contested | Held: Parentage Act limitations apply when parentage is at issue in probate |
| Whether an administrator (non-parent/non-child) has standing to challenge presumed parentage | As administrator, Malara has standing to determine heirship and to challenge parentage (including DNA) | Only persons enumerated in Parentage Act (child, mother, presumed parent) may challenge presumed parentage unless statutory representative provisions apply | Not answered categorically; standing depends on whether administrator can stand in presumed parent’s shoes under 46/602(j) and whether statutory conditions (46/608(b)) are met; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Poole, 207 Ill. 2d 393 (Ill. 2003) (Parentage Act is the statutory mechanism to determine parentage when parentage is at issue in probate)
- Wingate v. Estate of Ryan, 693 A.2d 457 (N.J. 1997) (New Jersey held parentage act limitations did not govern probate heirship claims)
- In re Nocita, 914 S.W.2d 358 (Mo. 1996) (Missouri allowed probate-specific probate-code timing to govern paternity claims in estates)
- Lewis v. Schneider, 890 P.2d 148 (Colo. App. 1994) (Colorado court applied specific probate-code provisions over Parentage Act limitations)
- In re Estate of Murray, 344 P.3d 419 (Nev. 2015) (Nevada applied Parentage Act limitations to bar siblings’ post-death challenge to a decedent’s daughter)
- In re Estate of Jotham, 722 N.W.2d 447 (Minn. 2006) (Minnesota held Parentage Act limitations apply in probate when a party benefits from a statutory presumption of paternity)