Rocker v. First Fin. Bank (In Re Rocker)
92 N.E.3d 988
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plenary guardian appointed for Leon C. Rocker’s person and estate in 2011 due to Rocker’s mental condition and prior financial indiscretions.
- Guardian of Rocker’s person terminated in 2013 by stipulation; First Financial Bank appointed successor guardian of Rocker’s estate in 2015.
- In July 2016 Rocker filed a petition to discharge the guardian and terminate the guardianship, asserting capacity to manage his affairs.
- Rockers attached a physician’s report from two doctors indicating he no longer suffers from a disability preventing management of his estate.
- November 2016 hearing featured testimony from Dr. Roberts, Dr. Whisenand, Rocker, and Kuntz; the court continued the matter to January 2017.
- January 2017 second hearing included additional testimony and evidence, including accounts of Rocker’s ongoing charitable giving to Internet solicitations and related investigations by Kuntz; the court denied termination of the guardianship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion admitting hearsay. | Rocker; Kuntz’s testimony and Exhibit 8 rely on hearsay. | Bank; court properly admitted evidence to show susceptibility to scams and relevance to Rocker’s capacity. | No abuse of discretion; evidence admissible to support the guardian’s concerns. |
| Whether the denial of Rocker’s petition to terminate guardianship was against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Rocker argues he is no longer disabled and can manage his estate. | Bank asserts Rocker remains at risk of waste and lacks clear and convincing evidence of capacity. | Affirmed; trial court’s denial of termination not against the manifest weight of the evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Caffey, 205 Ill.2d 52 (Ill. 2001) (reliability of hearsay rulings and discretion to admit hearsay)
- Lerma, 2016 IL 118496 (Ill. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission of hearsay)
- Wellman, 174 Ill.2d 335 (Ill. 1996) (guardianship proceedings—sole issue is the ward’s mental condition and best interests)
- Langford, 50 Ill. App.3d 623 (Ill. App. 1977) (test for guardianship over estate—incapability to prevent waste)
- In re C.M., 305 Ill. App.3d 154 (Ill. App. 1999) (sui generis guardianship determinations; factual comparisons limited)
- In re Al. S., 2017 IL App (4th) 160737 (Ill. App. 2017) (guardianship standards and deference to trial court findings)