Sanders v. Stasi
2011 IL App (4th) 100750
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Sanders filed a two-count complaint seeking an accounting and removal of Stasi as trustee.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
- The trust was created under Otto Stasi's will, providing three enumerated distributions to cover trustee fees, a living beneficiary, and personal residence expenses.
- Excess income beyond enumerated distributions was to be shared among Ruth Barnes, Stasi, and Sanders (with Sanders entitled to a share).
- Sanders alleged she was entitled to annual accounting under 11(a) of the Trusts and Trustees Act; the trial court found no excess income and thus no accounting.
- On appeal, the appellate court reversed and remanded, holding Sanders was entitled to an accounting under section 11(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sanders is entitled to an accounting under 11(a). | Sanders contends she has a right to an annual accounting. | Stasi argues no accounting is due absent excess income. | Sanders is entitled to an accounting. |
| Whether any beneficiary was receiving or entitled to receive trust income at filing. | There was at least one beneficiary (Stasi) receiving income. | No evidence of Sanders receiving income; entitlement controls. | There was at least one income recipient; Sanders’s entitlement exists. |
| Whether the interpretation of 'entitled' under 11(a) supports Sanders's accounting right. | Entitled means Sanders has a current right to receive income. | Entitled requires current receipt or a precise trigger; no excess income here. | Yes; entitlement includes Sanders's share to excess income, supporting an accounting. |
| Whether the trial court appropriately granted summary judgment. | Summary judgment was improper because material facts about excess income exist. | No excess income shown; summary judgment appropriate. | Summary judgment was inappropriate; need for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodpasture v. Fried, 183 Ill. App. 3d 491 (1989) (distinguishes 'eligible' from 'entitled' under 11(a))
- Wallace v. Malooly, 4 Ill. 2d 86 (1954) (trustee obligation to provide information necessary to enforce rights)
- Kajima Construction Services, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 227 Ill. 2d 102 (2007) (summary judgment standard and burden of proof on movant)
- Evens v. Brown, 399 Ill. App. 3d 238 (2010) (summary judgment de novo standard of review)