In re Estate of Sperry
2017 IL App (3d) 150703
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Anne Sperry died intestate in Sept. 2013 and was interred in one of two adjoining cemetery plots purchased by her ex-husband Jack Sperry; Anne’s funeral expenses were paid by her father and reimbursed by the estate.
- Matthew Spencer, Anne’s brother and independent administrator of her estate, sought to place a headstone he and Anne’s eldest child selected; Lackey Monument refused to install the stone after Jack objected.
- Jack paid for the plots (about $800 each), testified he intended to be buried alongside Anne and later sought control over the grave marker design (seeking a double / companion stone with both names).
- Matthew filed a petition for authority to place a headstone, alleging the estate had the right under the Disposition of Remains Act and asserting equitable estoppel (Jack’s silence induced the family to rely on burial arrangements); Jack did not answer but objected at hearing.
- The trial court found Jack had gifted the plot to Anne’s estate and allowed the estate to control the headstone; on appeal the appellate court affirmed on the alternative ground of equitable estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Spencer) | Defendant's Argument (Sperry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jack’s purchase of the grave was a gift to the estate such that the estate controls the headstone | Spencer argued the plot was purchased for Anne and Jack is estopped from denying a headstone per usual custom; trial court found a gift | Jack argued he bought the plots and thus retained the right to control design/placement of any monument | Appellate court did not decide gift claim; affirmed judgment on equitable estoppel grounds |
| Whether Jack is estopped from asserting control over headstone because he remained silent before burial | Spencer argued Jack had a duty to disclose any condition on paying for the plot and family relied to their detriment | Jack argued ownership of the plot gives him the right to control the headstone | Court held equitable estoppel proven by clear and convincing evidence; Jack’s silence induced reliance and would unfairly burden the estate/family if allowed to assert control now |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Michalski, 399 Ill. App. 3d 254 (gift requires clear and convincing proof)
- Geddes v. Mill Creek Country Club, Inc., 196 Ill. 2d 302 (equitable estoppel may arise from silence; duty to speak when another is about to infringe on a right)
- Babcock v. Martinez, 368 Ill. App. 3d 130 (party asserting estoppel must prove it by clear and convincing evidence)
- Mannheimer v. Wolff, 38 Ill. App. 2d 216 (right to bury includes right to erect monuments according to local custom)