In re: the Estate of Blickenstaff
980 N.E.2d 1285
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Petitioners challenge their father’s will and seek removal of the executor, their brother Jon Blickenstaff.
- During discovery, petitioners sought the executor’s personal financial documents and unredacted billing statements paid from estate assets.
- The executor and his attorney refused and were later found in contempt for failing to produce material documents.
- Court ordered production of the billing statements; ordered not to compel personal financial documents of the executor.
- Court held the billing statements are discoverable (implied waiver of attorney-client privilege) but personal financial documents are not disproportionately relevant to the issues.
- Trial court’s contempt finding was affirmed to the extent it upheld production of billing statements, and reversed otherwise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of discovery for personal finances | Blickenstaffs: personal finances relevant to waste and value of services | Blickenstaffs: require all personal financial docs | Personal financial documents not required; abuse of discretion |
| Disclosure of attorney billing statements | Billing details necessary to assess reasonableness of fees | Billing statements protected by attorney-client privilege | Billing statements must be produced; implied waiver of privilege |
| Contempt for failure to comply with production order | Nonproduction warranted contempt sanction | Sanction unnecessary or improper | Contempt affirmed for failure to produce billing statements; partial reversal on other issues |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Thomson, 139 Ill. App. 3d 930 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 1986) (attorney fees require court approval; sources of payment matter)
- In re Estate of Devoy, 231 Ill. App. 3d 883 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 1992) (fee consideration and administration subjects)
- Minsky v. Minsky, 59 Ill. App. 3d 974 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1978) (trustee/estate attorney fee issues; disclosure relevance)
- Freehill v. DeWitt County Service Co., 125 Ill. App. 2d 306 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 1970) (income tax returns discovery when income at issue; distinguish wrongful death)
- Manns v. Briell, 349 Ill. App. 3d 358 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (scope of discovery; relevance standard)
- Youle v. Ryan, 349 Ill. App. 3d 377 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (discovery requires showing relevance; abuse of discretion)
- Stukel (People ex rel. Ulrich v. Stukel), 294 Ill. App. 3d 193 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 1997) (attorney-client privilege scope in discovery)
- Fox Moraine, LLC v. United City of Yorkville, 2011 IL App (2d) 100017 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2011) (attorney-client privilege waiver by injecting issue into case)
- Ideal Electronic Security Co. v. International Fidelity Insurance Co., 129 F.3d 143 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (reasonableness of fee awards requires billing-detail disclosure)