2013 IL App (1st) 120130
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Claimants are the decedent’s adult children seeking a child’s award and an ability to share life-insurance proceeds.
- Decedent’s first marriage ended in Maryland with a consent judgment allocating life-insurance benefits to his children during minority.
- Decedent later remarried Katie Mosquera; he died intestate, and the Respondent sought administration and asserted Fernando was disabled.
- A petition for a 9-month child’s award was filed for Fernando, asserting disability and public-charge status.
- The claim regarding life-insurance proceeds alleged the divorce judgment required irrevocable designation of the children as beneficiaries up to majority; Respondent argued policy was not through employment and not available to claimants.
- The circuit court dismissed both the Petition and the Claim; on appeal, the court reversed the Petition dismissal and remanded for an award amount, but affirmed in part and remanded for further proceedings on the Claim as to the policy eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fernando qualifies as an adult dependent child under 15-2(a). | Mosquera: Fernando is a dependent who is unable to maintain himself. | Mosquera: Fernando must be deemed disabled as a minor to qualify. | Yes; Fernando is an adult dependent child; the award is due for nine months. |
| Whether the consent judgment required irrevocable designation of the claimants as beneficiaries after majority. | Claimants: obligation to designate irrevocably extends beyond minority. | Respondent: obligation ends at majority. | The obligation ends at majority; not entitled to proceeds since both were adults at death. |
| Whether the life-insurance policy was available through the decedent’s employment. | Policy available through employment; rights vest accordingly. | Policy purchased personally, not via employment; not available through employment. | Policy not available through employment; claim denied. |
| Whether the Petition and Claim satisfied procedural requirements for 2-619 dismissal. | Respondent’s motion was valid under 2-619 with proper verification. | Motion properly supported; verification suffices. | Verified motion supports dismissal; though Petition reversed on merits, Claim dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Degner v. Degner, 164 Ill. App. 3d 959 (Ill. App. 1987) (adult disabled child awarded nine-month support regardless of current financial dependence on decedent)
- Schwass v. Schwass, 126 Ill. App. 3d 512 (Ill. App. 1984) (minority status governs irrevocable designation under life-insurance obligations in divorce settlements)
- IDS Life Insurance Co. v. Sellards, 173 Ill. App. 3d 174 (Ill. App. 1988) (interpretation of ‘minor children’ and irrevocable beneficiaries in divorce settlements)
- Perkins v. Stuemke, 223 Ill. App. 3d 839 (Ill. App. 1992) (beneficiary designation for children persists beyond minority when not expressly limited)
- Griffin v. Universal Casualty Co., 274 Ill. App. 3d 1056 (Ill. App. 1995) (verification can substitute for Rule 191 affidavit in 2-619 context)
- In re Marriage of Manhoff, 377 Ill. App. 3d 671 (Ill. App. 2007) (verification and 2-619 practice standards)