Weisberger v. Weisberger
2011 IL App (1st) 101557
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Leah Weisberger executed a July 6, 2001 living trust naming herself sole beneficiary and sole trustee; Suzanne as successor trustee and William as alternate successor.
- The Harris Bank money market account and a Harris Bank certificate of deposit were titled Leah Weisberger Living Trust and funded from funds in William’s account; William was a signatory and listed as trustee on the accounts, though Leah was sole trustee of the trust.
- Leah alleged William withdrew $99,858.76 from the Harris accounts without authorization and deposited it into a joint Suzanne–William account; Leah demanded return of funds.
- Leah sued for four counts, but count IV (conversion) is the issue on appeal; trial court granted Leah summary judgment on count IV.
- William did not tender the funds to the clerk of the court as ordered, leading to a contempt-like sanction resulting in a final judgment against William.
- On appeal, the court reviews the grant of summary judgment on count IV and affirms, holding Leah had the right to the funds and an absolute right to immediate possession by the trust’s ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leah had an absolute right to the funds and to immediate possession. | Leah’s trust owned the Harris accounts; funds belonged to the trust and Leah as sole trustee. | Funds were commingled or owned by William personally; he withdrew his funds. | Yes; Leah had the right and the right to immediate possession. |
| Whether summary judgment on count IV was proper given any factual disputes. | No genuine issues; William withdrew funds without authorization. | Possible factual disputes about ownership/commingling. | Yes; no genuine material fact precluded summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. Belmont National Bank of Chicago, 112 Ill. 2d 64 (1986) (addressed right to immediate possession in conversion)
- Sadacca v. Monhart, 128 Ill. App. 3d 250 (1984) (trust funds commingling presumption distinguished)
- In re Marriage of Barnett, 344 Ill. App. 3d 1150 (2003) (transfers of accounts; ownership implications)
- Multi-Clean Products, Inc. v. Kasper, 3 Ill. App. 3d 12 (1971) (bank deposits presumed to belong to named account owner)
- Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324 (2002) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (1992) (standard for granting summary judgment; drastic measure)