2012 IL App (1st) 112812
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Walgreen created a living trust, later restated in 1999 with Exhibit A Beneficiary List memorializing bequests to Rotary/One Foundation and Rotary International Foundation (10,000 shares each) and other institutions.
- Walgreen died in 2007; the trust allows lifetime amendments by the settlor under Article Ten, with the 1999 amendment linking Exhibit A to distributions at death.
- Walgreen donated 1999 stock to Rotary Foundations (and other institutions) as “pre-bequest” gifts or advances, and correspondences framed these as lifetime gifts affecting the intended bequests.
- After Walgreen’s death, trustees sought to interpret the trust; Walgreen Beneficiaries claimed ademption and a latent ambiguity based on lifetime gifts and the Charity List.
- A 2009 settlement with several charities resolved some ademption issues and established stock sufficiency for bequests; disputes remained about Rotary Foundations and attorney fees.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Rotary Foundations; the appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment and dismissed certain fee matters for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ademption apply to trusts for bequests to Rotary Foundations? | Walgreen Beneficiaries: ademption applies to trust bequests by lifetime gifts. | Rotary Foundations: ademption should apply in trusts as in wills. | Yes, ademption applies in the trust context and supports grant of summary judgment for Rotary Foundations. |
| Is there a latent ambiguity requiring extrinsic evidence? | Walgreen Beneficiaries: lifetime gifts create latent ambiguity. | Rotary Foundations: no latent ambiguity; trust language unambiguous. | No latent ambiguity; extrinsic evidence not required. |
| Is the Charity List admissible to prove ademption or latent ambiguity? | Walgreen Beneficiaries: Charity List shows Walgreen’s intent to adeem Rotary amounts. | Rotary Foundations: Charity List lacks proper foundation and should be disregarded. | Charity List not admissible; insufficient foundation; not used to find ademption. |
| Are attorney fees recoverable against the trust for beneficiaries? | Walgreen Beneficiaries seek fees from the fund. | Fees were resolved by prior order and are not appealable here. | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on fee order; fee issue remains unresolved in this appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Paine, 391 Ill. 596 (Ill. 1945) (ademption principle for specific bequests)
- In re Estate Kreitman, 68 Ill. App. 3d 523 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979) (lifetime disposition can revoke a specific legacy; distinguishable facts)
- Richardson v. Eveland, 126 Ill. 37 (Ill. 1888) (determine ademption by examining donor’s intent and accompanying words)
- Hurst v. Estate, 329 Ill. App. 3d 326 (Ill. App. 2002) (latent ambiguity and beneficiary construction principles)
- Ruby v. Ruby, 2012 IL App (1st) 103210 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012) (trust ademption treated consistent with will interpretation)