2016 IL App (2d) 150084
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Diane Mendelson owned a Highland Park home and had four sons: Robert, Michael, Ronald, and Daniel. Michael moved in with her around 2004–2005.
- July 15, 2005: Diane executed an unrecorded quitclaim deed purporting to place the home in joint tenancy with Michael (2005 deed); it was not recorded during her lifetime.
- June 16, 2006: Diane executed a living trust (2006 trust) and a deed transferring the home into that trust (2006 deed) specifying equal distribution among the four sons; the 2006 deed was recorded.
- July 1, 2011: Diane executed a new trust (2011 trust) that revoked prior trusts and stated she had quitclaimed the home to Michael in joint tenancy and intended the home to be his on her death; no deed transferring the home into the 2011 trust was executed before her death.
- Diane died October 1, 2011. Michael recorded the 2005 deed after her death and later recorded the 2011 trust. The estate petitioned to determine title; Michael counterclaimed ownership and sought custodial-care compensation for caring for Diane.
- The trial court found: (1) the 2005 deed was not delivered during Diane’s lifetime (so no joint tenancy), (2) the 2006 trust was valid but was revoked by the 2011 trust, and (3) because the home was not in the 2011 trust, it reverted to Diane’s probate estate (to be divided equally). The court denied Michael’s custodial-care claim.
Issues
| Issue | Mendelson's Argument | Estate's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/delivery of 2005 deed (joint tenancy) | The 2005 deed conveyed full title to Michael via joint tenancy | Diane did not intend to transfer a present interest; the deed was not delivered/recorded during her life | Trial court not against manifest weight: no delivery; deed ineffective to convey present interest |
| Whether 2011 trust gave Michael the home | 2011 trust language and revocation of prior trusts show Diane intended Michael to receive the home | 2011 trust did not transfer the home into the trust; language indicates the home was not part of trust estate | Court: 2011 trust did not convey the home to the trust; Michael gets no additional title from it |
| Effect of revocation of 2006 trust without home in 2011 trust | Michael argued trust revocation supported his ownership claims | Estate: revocation left the recorded 2006 deed funding a revoked trust, so property falls to probate | Held: home reverted to probate estate and is divided equally among four sons |
| Section 18-1.1 custodial-care claim | Michael claimed compensation for years of personal care and bill payments | Estate disputed level of dedication, lost opportunities, and credibility | Held: trial court’s denial affirmed; Michael failed to show required dedication or lost opportunities |
Key Cases Cited
- Nofftz v. Nofftz, 290 Ill. 36 (presumption of delivery in parent-to-child voluntary settlement may arise)
- Sample v. Geathard, 281 Ill. 79 (delivery requires intent; mere handing to grantee insufficient)
- Stanford v. Stanford, 371 Ill. 211 (delivery and grantor intent are questions of fact depending on circumstances)
- Rouland v. Burton, 296 Ill. App. 138 (instrument intended to take effect only at death is testamentary)
- Foster v. Foster, 273 Ill. App. 3d 106 (failure to record during grantor’s life undercuts delivery presumption)
- In re Estate of Wittmond, 314 Ill. App. 3d 720 (trial court’s factual finding on deed delivery reviewed for manifest weight)
- First Nat’l Bank of Chicago v. Canton Council of Campfire Girls, 85 Ill. 2d 507 (primary concern in trust construction is settlor’s intent)
- In re Estate of Jolliff, 199 Ill. 2d 510 (definition of "dedicate" and standards for custodial-care claims under Probate Act)
- In re Estate of Lower, 365 Ill. App. 3d 469 (factors showing dedication for custodial-care claim)