Sperry v. Spencer (In Re Estate of Sperry)
91 N.E.3d 903
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Anne Sperry died in 2013 without a will; her children were minors. Matthew Spencer was appointed independent administrator of her estate.
- Anne’s ex-husband, Jack Sperry, purchased two adjoining cemetery plots; Anne was interred in one paid for by Jack but funeral/burial costs initially covered by Anne’s father and later reimbursed by the estate.
- In 2014 Matthew (on behalf of the estate) selected a headstone; Jack objected, asserting plot ownership and refusing placement of a headstone he did not approve.
- Matthew filed a petition seeking authority to place a headstone (or alternatively to seek disinterment/reinterment), alleging the estate had the right under the Disposition of Remains Act and that Jack was estopped from blocking a customary headstone.
- After a bench trial the trial court found Jack had gifted the plot to the estate and granted the estate the right to control the headstone; the appellate court affirmed on the alternative ground of equitable estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who controls design/placement of headstone on plot Jack purchased? | Matthew: the estate (as legal representative under Disposition of Remains Act) has the right; Jack is estopped from objecting because he never reserved control before burial. | Jack: as plot purchaser/owner he has the right to control the headstone and was not estopped; trial court’s gift finding lacked proof. | Court affirmed that Jack is equitably estopped from asserting control because he kept silent about any reservation of control until after burial and the estate relied to its detriment. |
| Was a valid inter vivos gift of the burial plot proved? | Matthew: trial court found a gift (estate could control plot). | Jack: no clear-and-convincing proof of gift; trial court erred. | Appellate court did not rely on gift finding but affirmed judgment on equitable estoppel instead. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Michalski, 399 Ill. App. 3d 254 (Illinois App. Ct.) (discusses burden to prove gifts by clear and convincing evidence)
- Geddes v. Mill Creek Country Club, Inc., 196 Ill. 2d 302 (Ill. 2001) (equitable estoppel may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak)
- Babcock v. Martinez, 368 Ill. App. 3d 130 (Ill. App. Ct.) (party asserting estoppel must prove it by clear and convincing evidence)
- Mannheimer v. Wolff, 238 Ill. App. 2d 216 (Ill. App. Ct.) (right to bury includes right to erect monuments according to local custom)