Johnson v. Filler
109 N.E.3d 370
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Lawrence and Ruth Johnson owned 410 acres (Johnson Farms); Ruth’s trust left her one-half interest to her five children with a life estate to Lawrence; Ruth’s trust specified Steven would receive Ruth’s one-half interest in the Home Farm upon Lawrence’s death.
- Lawrence had a 2011 will that left the balance of his estate equally to four children and expressly stated he intentionally omitted providing for Steven because he had been "fairly and adequately compensated."
- In 2013 Lawrence executed (with attorney Jay K. Filler) a quitclaim deed conveying his one-half interest in the Home Farm to his grandson James Schulz Jr.; Filler also drafted a 2013 will and trust that largely left Lawrence’s remainder interests to two children (Julie and Carolyn) and disinherited Steven.
- Larry, Marjorie, and Steven sued Carolyn, Julie, James, and later Filler and accountant O’Brien, alleging undue influence, tortious interference with inheritance expectancy, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, fiduciary breach, and other claims; multiple pleadings were dismissed.
- Steven settled and dismissed his probate petition against Carolyn, Julie, and James but expressly reserved claims against Filler and O’Brien; he then filed a third amended complaint asserting (inter alia) aiding-and-abetting tortious interference against Filler for drafting the 2013 documents and related papers.
- The trial court granted Filler’s section 2-615 motion to dismiss the aiding-and-abetting count, finding (1) Steven failed to allege Filler knew of or substantially assisted undue influence, (2) the probate settlement barred the claim, and (3) Steven was effectively disinherited by the 2011 will; the appellate court affirmed on the failure-to-plead basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Filler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the third amended complaint plausibly pleads aiding/abetting tortious interference with inheritance expectancy | Alleged Filler knew Lawrence was "susceptible" to undue influence, "should have known" the conveyance and will changes were presumptively fraudulent, and drafted documents that substantially assisted Carolyn’s undue influence | Filler argued plaintiff failed to plead actual knowledge or that Filler knowingly and substantially assisted any undue influence; at best allegations show constructive knowledge or negligence | Dismissed: complaint failed to plead actual knowledge and substantial assistance required for aiding/abetting |
| Whether constructive knowledge (“should have known”) suffices for aiding/abetting liability | Constructive knowledge is sufficient | Actual knowledge is required; constructive knowledge inadequate | Held: actual knowledge required; constructive knowledge insufficient |
| Whether the probate settlement barred Steven’s claim against Filler | Settlement did not bar reserved claims against Filler | Settlement (and related precedent) barred collateral claims arising from probate resolution | Court did not need to decide; affirmed dismissal on failure-to-plead grounds |
| Whether Steven was already disinherited by the 2011 will (damages element) | Steven argued 2011 will still left him a one-fifth share of personal property, so damages exist | Filler argued Steven was completely disinherited earlier, so no damages from 2013 documents | Court affirmed dismissal without deciding this point, relying on failure to plead aiding/abetting elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornwood, Inc. v. Jenner & Block, 344 Ill. App. 3d 15 (Ill. App. 2003) (aiding-and-abetting requires allegations of actual knowledge and substantial assistance; plaintiff’s detailed factual allegations there sufficed)
- Wolf v. Liberis, 153 Ill. App. 3d 488 (Ill. App. 1987) (elements for aiding and abetting identified)
- Cherney v. Soldinger, 299 Ill. App. 3d 1066 (Ill. App. 1998) (probate settlement preclusion principles discussed)
- White v. Moran, 134 Ill. App. 480 (Ill. App. 1907) (older statement that knowledge may be actual or constructive, but distinguishing facts involved actual knowledge)
- Barker v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, 797 F.2d 490 (7th Cir. 1986) (constructive knowledge insufficient for aider/abetter liability)