2020 IL App (2d) 190392
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Mary A. Young died; her will was admitted to probate on February 27, 2015; six weeks before death she executed a will leaving the estate to daughter Suzanne.
- A. Steven Young filed a will contest on August 24, 2015 (within the six-month Probate Act window) and later filed a separate six-count tort/fiduciary complaint (filed March 28, 2016).
- Counsel for plaintiff withdrew November 6, 2018; the court required in-person appearances and set matters for hearing; plaintiff’s November continuance attempt was not electronically filed and was rejected.
- On January 16, 2019 new counsel appeared but the court denied a continuance and dismissed both the will contest and the complaint for want of prosecution (DWP); the estate was closed February 1, 2019.
- Plaintiff timely moved to vacate the DWP orders; he refiled the complaint on April 9, 2019; the trial court denied the motion to vacate the DWP of the will contest on April 10, 2019 and stayed certain accounting matters pending appeal.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the DWP orders were not final because the savings statute (section 13-217) permits refiling and plaintiff filed a timely motion to vacate that affected the refiling period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DWP of the will contest — is the dismissal immediately appealable? | Young: DWP of will contest is final because Probate Act’s six‑month filing period is jurisdictional, so no refiling under §13‑217; appealable under Rule 304(b)(1). | Defendants: Section 8‑1(a) is jurisdictional and therefore trumps §13‑217; DWP became final when six months expired. | Court: §8‑1(a) is not jurisdictional in the pre‑Belleville sense; Breault and the savings statute apply, so DWP was not final. Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Does §13‑217 (the savings statute) permit refiling of a will contest after a DWP? | Young: No right to refile because §8‑1(a)’s six‑month limit is jurisdictional. | Defendants: §8‑1(a) jurisdictional; savings statute cannot revive limited‑time jurisdictional actions. | Court: Follows Breault; §13‑217 applies to will contests where commencement time is limited, so refiling is available. |
| DWP of the six‑count tort/fiduciary complaint — was that dismissal final? | Young: (alternative) court abused discretion in dismissing for want of prosecution. | Defendants: Plaintiff failed to prosecute, refused discovery, and ignored orders; dismissal proper. | Court: Complaint involved ordinary civil claims; §13‑217 permitted refiling (and plaintiff did refile). DWP was not final; appellate court lacks jurisdiction. |
| Denial of continuance — did trial court abuse discretion? | Young: Denial was erroneous and prejudiced his ability to litigate after counsel withdrew. | Defendants: Plaintiff delayed, failed to comply with orders, and asked for repeated extensions; denial proper. | Court: Did not reach the merits because the DWP orders were interlocutory for purposes of appeal; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (rejecting pre‑1964 rule that statutory limitations in certain statutes are jurisdictional prerequisites)
- In re Estate of Breault, 113 Ill. App. 2d 356 (1959 amendment to savings statute permits refiling of will contests dismissed by nonsuit/DWP)
- S.C. Vaughan Oil Co. v. Caldwell, Troutt & Alexander, 181 Ill. 2d 489 (a DWP becomes final only after the savings‑statute refiling period expires)
- Flores v. Dugan, 91 Ill. 2d 108 (DWP in personal‑injury action not final where plaintiff has statutory right to refile)
- In re Estate of Ellis, 236 Ill. 2d 45 (six‑month Probate Act period establishes will validity, but tort claims are analyzed separately)
- Bowers v. Village of Palatine, 204 Ill. App. 3d 135 (refiling period under §13‑217 does not begin to run while a timely motion to vacate DWP is pending)
- Edwards v. Safer Foundation, Inc., 171 Ill. App. 3d 793 (savings statute construed liberally to protect plaintiffs from loss of relief due to procedural defects)
- Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367 (addressing constitutionality of Civil Justice Reform Amendments and effect on refiling provisions)