FOURTH DIVISION March 24, 2011

No. 1-09- 3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated) In Re ESTATE OF M AR GERY M. ELI AS, ) Deceased, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Marg aret K .H. W

hi taker, a s In

depe nde nt Ex ecutor ) Co o k C o un t y. of the Estate of

Marg ery M. El i as, D ece ase d, )

) Pe ti ti on er -A pp el l ee an d C ros s- A

pp el l an t, ) 07 P 6699 ) v. ) ) T he Ho no r ab le E lea no rA. H. Mc Do nne ll, ) Ja mes W. Ke nne dy, ) Judge Presidin

g. Responden

t-Appell ant and Cross-Appe ll

ee, ) ) JUSTIC E PUCIN SKI d

el i vered th e j udgm

en t of the court, wi th opi ni on. Pres i di ng J ustice Ga l l agh er an d Jus tic e La vi n c oncu rred i n the j udgm

en t and opi ni on. OPINI ON Peti ti one r-a ppe l l eean

d c ros s- appe l l an

t, Ma rga ret A .H. W

hi tak er, i nd ep en de nt e xe cu tor of the estat e of Margery M. Elias, deceased, fil ed a petition for reco very of ci tat ion agai

nst re sp on den

t-a pp el l an t an d c ros s- appe l l ee , El

ea n or A .H . M cD on

n el l , to re cov

er pers on al pr operty an d a pp r o ximat ely $ 47 1, 00 0 w hic h w as t r an sfe rr ed fr o m Elia s’ s br o ke r ag e a cc o un t t o Mc Do nne ll pur sua nt t o a t ra nsfer- on- dea t h beneficiar y form E lias execu t ed w hile McDo nnell was ac t ing und er a pow er of

attorney . The t rial co ur t fou nd t hat Elias lack ed ment al cap acit y to effect t he transfer of money

and gif ts o f personal propert y. The trial cour t also found that there was a pre su m ption th es e tra ns f ers were f rau dul en t be ca us e M cD onn

el l wa s a ppoi nte d El i as ’s pow er of1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

2 atto rney, and that McDonnel l f ai le d to rebut this pres

umption. The court awarded Whi taker her f ees and costs as ex

ecutor, b ut ass ess ed al

l f ees and costs a

gai nst the estate. Both a

ppea l ed. Mc Don n el l se ek s to h av

e th e j udgm en t re v er se d. W

h i tak er se ek s to h av

e th e f ee s a n d c ost s as se ss ed en ti rel y ag ai ns t Mc Don ne l l . W e f

i nd the tri al cou rt’ s dete rm

i na ti on of l ac k of t est ament ar y capa city and use of u ndue infl uenc e wa s no t aga inst t he manifest weight of t he evi dence an d aff irm that judgm

ent. We al so aff

irm the port ion of

the fee order awarding the total
amo un t o f at t o rne y fee s a nd co st s. Ho we ve r , t he t r ial c o ur t ab us ed it s d isc r et io n in n o t eq uit ab ly apport ioni

ng the f ees and c osts between the estate and McDonn el l, an d thus, we reverse that porti on of the orde r an d re man d f or a d ete rm i na ti on of the f ee s a nd cos ts i nc urred asa re sul t of t he misc o nd uc t o f Mc Do nne ll and order that thi s porti on of f ees and costs b e as ses sed

agai nst her. BACK GROUND The foll owing f acts were adduced at trial i n the citation proce edin

gs. Eli as exec uted a wil l on Septem

ber 14, 1997, and two codici ls , one on January 21, 1988,
and an other on Feb ruary 10, 199 5. The

wil l l ef t $5,000 to El

i as’ son, R

am on J. El i as, J r. (Jay ), wit h t he balanc e o f her e st at e sp lit eq ually betw een M cDo nnell and Whita ker . Mc Do nnell and Wh i taker a re b oth dau

ghters of the l ate El i as. Th e Ja nua ry 21, 198 8, codi

cil na med as ex ecutors Elias’ hu sband , fo llowed by Whi t ake r, t hen in suc ces sion M cDo nnell, Will iam A. Ed war ds, and Society National Ban

k. The seco nd codicil dated February 1, 1995, o nl y am ended the fi

rst par agr aph o f the will to re flect t hat all jewelry wo uld be s plit e qua lly bet wee n McD onne ll and Wh i taker, a nd d i d not am end an y other wi l l provision. Eli asan d her h usba nd , Ra mon E l i as , h ad

a 4 5-a cre f arm prop erty an d re si de nc e i n Ohi o.1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

3 Ramon Elias die d in Ma r ch 20 04 . Whit ak er t es t ified t ha t be fo r e h er fat he rdie d, she wo uld visit on holi day s and at other unsch

edul ed tim

es, but the only

tim e the whol e fam

il y got to gether was for her f ather’s f uneral . The fa

mi ly had a h is to ry of fri ction, i ncl udin g the dis ownin

g of Wh itaker and McDonn

el l’ s brother Jay

about 30 years ago, and there was al way s f riction between W

hi taker
and Mc Donn

el l
. El i as deci ded to se l l

the f arm af ter he r hu sb and died. T he r e w er e fr eq ue nt t ele ph o ne ca lls
am ong Eli as, McDonne ll

and W hi taker regarding wh

ere Eli as would l

iv e. Eli as even tuall y m oved i nto an apartm en t in May f i eld, Oh i o, in Marc h 20 05. Af ter t he f arm was sold i n A ugust 2005, McDonnel

l a nd W hi taker bot h spen

t four weekends in October 2005 hel

pin g Eli as pack up the i

tems i n the h ouse. Whi

taker t estif

ie d that Eli aswa s “

wa nd eri ng ” a nd wa s n ot pa ck i ng , but M cD onn

el l tes ti f i ed tha t Eli aswa s doi

ng l oad s of laundr y, making mea ls for ever yone, cleaning a nd o rg anizing t he pa cking, and a ssist ing in the
m ovi ng process . On the second weekend, W hi taker and McDonne ll

were sorting i

tems f or packing wh

en El i as s crea

med th at one of

the p ai nti ngs , ei ther a Pi cas so or a Re

m bra ndt, was m

i ssi ng. McDonnell

accused Whi

taker of taking i

t and said that either Whi

taker or t hei

r brot her Jay m

ust have i t. Whi taker stat ed that was not po ssi ble becaus e she arri

ved on Fri

day ni ght at 9 p.m., after McD onne ll arrived , a nd left Su nday night , w hile McDo nnell left Mo nday mor ning, a nd Mc Don n el l h ad th e key . M cD on

n el l tackl ed W h i tak er i n th e a tri um as W h i tak er tried to l ea v e to take a b reak, a nd El i as told the

two of the

m to stop. On t he t hird w eek end, Whitak er ar rived at t he far m at a ro und 9 p. m. as u sua l, but t he1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

4 hou se w as lo cke d and dar k. Elias and McD onne ll arrived at 11: 30 p .m. and w ent inside and hung up t heir co at s. Whit ak er fo llow ed t hem ins ide and st at ed , “ Yo u t wo ar e t he t wo mo st se lfcentered women

that I have ever known i

n m y l if e,” because

nei ther had cal

le d Wh itaker to let her know they would be run ni ng l ate. A t that poi nt, El i as s l appe d W

hi taker. W hi taker i n turn touc he d El

i as , an d El i asl ost h er b al an cean d s tep pe d b ac k b

ut di d n ot f al l . McDon

ne l l di d n ot wi tnes s thi s al tercati on. A l so, Mc Donn

el l never wi tnes sed Wh i taker strik

e El i as a t any tim e. Whitak er st ayed o ver night and p ro cee ded t o c ont inue as sist ing in pack ing t hat wee kend , sp eak ing wi th her m other ab out the order of

pack i ng i tem s. El i as w as stil

l wan deri ng a round the h ouse. On the f in al weekend, m

ovin g trucks moved al

l the pe rsonal propert y the

y h ad packed i

nto four storage u ni ts i n M ay f i eld Hei ghts , down

the street f

rom E l i as’ apartm

en t. The only items gif ted t o McDo nnel

l b y El ias were a bab

y grand piano, so me cab in ets, bo o ks , an d t wo ch an de lier s. Whit ak er wa s g ive n t he pla yer pia no , a s mall ma r ble en d t ab le, so me books a nd two cha

nde l i ers, b eca

use , acc ordi

ng to W hi taker, i t was a n even s pli t. Ot her t han t he i tem s E l i as took to h er

n ew ap ar tmen t, al l rem ai ni ng p erson al property wen t in to storage. Whit ak er t es t ified t ha t Mc Do nne ll t o o k o t he rpe r so na l pr o pe r t y o f E lias , wh ile M cD o nne ll t est ifi ed t hat she w as g iven the items by E lias, including a go ld ring, blue lamp, and flat war e. As t o p ar t icular items, Whitak er ’s and McD onne ll’s valuat ions va ried subs t ant ially . I n par t icular , t he fl atw are given to McDo nnel l is all eged by Whi

tak er t o be wo rt h up t o $2 00,0 00, but McDo nnel l’s apprais er plac ed the val

ue of the f

la tware at appro xi

ma tely $14,050. McDonnel

l’ s apprai ser furt her app ra ised t he co nt est ed p er so nal pr op er t y in poss essio n of Mc Do nnell at $ 31, 000 , a nd t he pers onal property of the Estate i

n storage at $45 ,000.1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

5 Wi tness Co set t e Ga ul helped Elias do wo rk on t he far m while Elias ow ned t he far m and had m any conversati ons wi

th her duri

ng 2004 to 2005, which

continue d by

phone one to two times a week after t he f

arm was packed up, into 200 6. Gaul test if ied that in al

l these conversati ons, Eli

as was of s ound mi

nd an d me mory . Gaul was

present on one of the weeken ds when Wh itaker and McDonnel

l we re hel pin g Eli as pack up the h

ouse and observed Wh

itaker
sw ea r ing an d b ein g r ud e t o ev er yo ne inc lud ing E lias
. Ga ul t es t ified t ha t “E lea no r[ Mc Do nne ll]
seem ed to be there for her m

ot her. I wouldn’ t say Ma ggie [Whi taker] was.” A nn La x te sti f i ed tha t sh e h ad kn own the Eli as esf or 50yea rs . W hi l e El i aswa s l i vi ng on the farm , Lax saw h

er in person once a m

onth and spoke wi

th her one to t wo times

a week. Af

ter Ram on Eli as di ed, Lax spoke wi

th Eli as by teleph one approxim

ately three tim es a week. Af

ter Elias mo ved t o M ayfield Height s in Augu st 200 4, Lax sa w her in per so n fou r t imes a mont h and spoke wi th her on th

e teleph one on e to two tim

es a week
. Lax testi fi

ed that Eli as seem

ed normal
and of soun d m i nd a nd m em ory . Wh i taker v i si ted El i as i n pe rson at l east once a

month a f ter he r f athe r’sdeath and be f ore Eli as m oved from

the farm to the apartmen

t. Pr ior to her father’s de ath, Whi taker recall

ed her mot her ’s pe rso nality as “ver y, ver y str ong -w ill ed” and “ve ry, ve ry indep ende nt .” She lo ved d oing activ ities, going to a movi

e or t he sy

mph ony or the bal

le t, and she travel

ed. She al so organized di nn ers, c ocktail

parti es, a nd g athe ri ngs and was ve ry organ ized. Wh itaker testif

ie d that Eli as be cam e conf use d an d ve ry depre sse d af

ter he r hu sb and died an

d ha d troubl e rem em beri ng th i ngs . El i as h ad s ev eral car acci den ts, one of whi ch resu l ted i n the total

l oss of her ve hi cle. Wh itaker arranged f

or t he purchase of a n

ew veh ic le . However, six

months la ter Eli as cal

le d1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

6 Whitak er t o t ell her t he ca r w as g et t ing re po sses sed and t hat t he de aler mad e a mist ake wit h t he pa perw ork . El

i as h ad de ci de d to put th

e i n su ra n ce mon ey f rom th e acc i den

t i n h er ac cou n t, i nstead of pay i ng th e ca r i n f ull , and executed

a 60-m onth n ote. The d

eal er had gi ven h er a co upo n boo k fo r he r p ayments , bu t Elias t old Whitak er she ne ver re ceived a co upo n boo k and
wa s no t aw ar e t ha t she ha d a no t e o n t he ve hic le. E lias als o ind ica t ed she wa s ha ving t r o ub le bal anci ng he r checkb ook. Wh

itaker di scussed the i

ssue with McDonnel

l a nd they deci ded that El i as’ broke

r, Joh n Tur ner, would as si st he

r wi th pa y i ng h er b i l l s an d ba l anci ng h er ch eckb ook. El i as wa s a dv i se d to p ay

f or th e v eh i cl e i n f ul l an d s o sh e kep t i t. The re was also an incident wher e E lias st ru ck a vehicle in 200 5 in a sho pping mall park ing lot and di d not remem

ber doin g so. She calle d Wh

itaker to complai

n that she thought she

was be i ng i nv olv ed i n i ns uran ce f raud. W hi taker i nf orme d Mc Donn

el l of th i s i nc i den t. Wh i taker was con

cern ed ab out Eli

as a nd w rote a l etter to Eli

as’ pri mary phy sici an , Dr. Thomas Ki ng, i n March 2005 outli

ni ng h er con cerns an d Dr. K i ng s aw El i as. Eli as told Wh

itaker that D r. King gav

e her a clean

bill of heal th, but Whi

taker did not beli

eve Eli as. Whit ak er sp o ke wit h Mc Do nne ll and Mc Do nne ll indic at ed t ha t she ha d s o me o f t he sa me concerns. They

dis cussed that Eli

as had gotten lost on the way to a restaurant that she had b een goi ng to f or 45 y ears . McDonnel

l i ndicated she woul d research an d fi nd a b etter docto r for Eli

as to ascer tai n w hether El i as h ad a c onf usi on prob l em, a depress i on prob l em, or a he ari ng probl em . According to McDo nnel

l, Dr. Kin g call ed her and to ld h

er he thoug ht Elias was depressed, b ut that otherwi se s

he wasf i ne . McDonnel

l testi fi ed that she had f

requent contact with her m ot her af ter her father di

ed,1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

7 i n cl udi n g i n -p er son v i si ts a t l ea st o n e w eek ev er

y mon th . M cD on

n el l also h ad ph on e c on tact wi th El i as two to three

tim es p er we ek. Elias exe cut ed a healt h car e po wer of a t t or ney on S ept ember 2 8, 200 5, naming McDonnel

l, wi th Wh itaker as suc cessor. On that sam e date, Eli as exec

uted a durable

general power of att orney appoi

ntin g Wh itaker as h

er power o f attorney. However, on Novem ber 16, 20 05 , El i as execute d a

n oth er du ra b l e g en eral pow er of attor n ey i n ste ad n am i n g M cD on

n el l , w i th W h i tak er as succ es sor . Th

e d ur ab l e p owe

r of attor n ey gr an ted b roa d p owe

rs to M cD on

n el l to ha ndl e an d di spose of El i as’ real and pers onal

property . Accordin g to McDonnel

l, sh e di d not inv

oke her power of att orney b ecause El ia s gave h er perm i ssi on to tal k to her d octors. Howev

er, on F ebruary

20, 200 6, Mc Donn

el l sen t a f ax to Dr. Ki ng aski ng to “have m

y m ot her si gn consen t for me to be abl

e to assist y

ou regarding h

er matte rs ,” a

nd i nd i ca ti ng sh e h ad pre vi ous l y f axed the si gnatu re p ag e of he r h eal th c are pow er of attorney ex ecuted Septem ber 28, 20 05. McD onnel

l moved El i as to Il

l i noi s i ni tia l l y f or testi ng, a nd th en moved her there perm anen tly. Ac cordi

ng to Mc Donn

el l , i n Decem ber 23, 2005, she took Elias to Al exi an Broth er s H osp i

tal i n El k G rove V i l l ag e, Il

l i n oi s, b ec au se

sh e w as sti l l atte m pti n g a t th at ti me to get Eli as i nto an assi sted li

vi ng f aci li ty i n Cl evel and wh ere Eli as wanted to go but Dr. Ki ng was not coopera

tin g. It was more conven

ie nt for McDonne ll

to take Elias to do ctor s i n Il li nois as opposed to Ohio. McD onnel

l di d not l ook in to any other doctors f

or El i as i n the Cl ev eland area
. Mc Don n el l wa s n ot co n cerned

wi th El i as ’ m en tal ca paci ty ; ra th er , s h e w an

ted to i nv esti gate wh ethe r El i as h ad a h eari ng p robl em . Ho weve r, McD onne ll did not make a ny1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

8 appoin tments f or an ear, nose and throat special is t. McDonnell was aware that the docto r at Alex ian Br o t he r s H o sp it al, Dr . Fo r ch et t i, sp ec ializ ed in t r ea t ing pa t ien t s w it h me mo ry pr o ble ms wh o had Al zh ei mer’s and dem en tia , but c l ai

med de men tia was“n ev er” a conc ern of h ers. Whi taker was unaware that McDonnell to ok E li as to Alexi an Brot hers Hospital i n Ill in ois,
and non e of the eva l uati ons or test resul

ts were shared w i th W hi taker. Ac co r din g t o Mc Do nne ll, she was acting as El

ias’ “sole soundi

ng board” within

the fam il y b ecause “[t]hat ’s the way [Eli as] wanted i t.” Elia s speci

fi cally in form ed McDonne ll

that she did not want Whi taker or their b

rot her Jay to know an

y thi ng a bout her l i f e. Wh i taker f ound out that McD onnel

l wasmovi

ng El i as to Ba rri ngton f rom h er brother Jay . McDonnel

l h ad l eft a voicem

ai l f or Jay statin

g that Eli as was m

ovin g to Chi cago and i f h

e wanted to see Elia s he s

hould h ave l unch with them

in Cl evel and. Wh itaker deci

ded to go as wel

l, ev en though McD onnel

l di d not i nv i te he r, an d drov e 3 1/

2 hour s f rom D ay ton to Cl ev eland. Mc Do nne ll t o ld W hit ak er an d J ay t ha t she ha d a po we ro f at t o rne y, t ha t she wa s t he o ne in
co nt ro l of making bu siness d ecisio ns for Elias, and if Whitak er or Jay want ed t o k now anything ab out Eli as, they were to call McD onnel

l and not El

i as. Wh itaker was “in

shock.” Pr eviou sly, Elias had been a damant abo ut st aying in Cleveland be ca us e s he ha d b ee n t he r e fo r50 yea r s a nd ha d a so cia l cir cle o f fr ien ds t he r e. At no t ime in 2006 d i d Eli as e ver ex pres s to Wh

i taker that she wi shed to m ove f rom th e Cl ev eland area
. Acco rd ing t o M cDo nnell, ho weve r, Elias had no o bject ion t o mo ving t o I lli nois a nd wa s loo king f orward to i

t as a n ew “ adv en ture,” a nd k new m an y of M cDon

ne l l ’sf ri ends. McDonnell

also claimed t hat at t he lunch, bot h Whitak er and J ay seemed “relieved ” t hat McD onne ll was t aking1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

9 El i as wi th her. Af ter t he l unch , McDonnel

l l eft wi th Eli as and drove h

er to Chi cago. Whi

taker consulted an attor ney

about McDonnel

l’ s power of atto rney

and m ovin g Eli as to Illi nois , but the att orney told h er onc e the

power of attorney wasi n pl ace , there wasnothi

ng W hi taker c oul d do. McDonnel

l de nied m aki ng these statements and cl ai me d Wh itaker and J

ay perhaps “m i sun ders tood” wha

t she sai d. At A l exi an Brothers Hos

pi tal , Mich el

l e San Fi l i ppo, a ph y sici an ass i stan t, worked f

or Dr. Fo r ch et t i. Sa nFilip po als o dir ec t ed sp ec ial c ar e u nit s fo rpa t ien t s w it h Alz he imer ’s an d d eme nt ia
an d w asa v ol un teer f or th e A lzh ei mer’ s A ss oci

ati on f or 10yea rs . Sa nF i l i ppo e va l ua ted Eli asf or h er m i n i -m en tal sta tus ex am i n ati on at A l ex i an Broth er s on

De cem b er 23 , 20 05 . El

i as ca me wi th McD onne ll. Elias did no t want t o be at t he eva luat ion, was angr y abou t not livi ng in Ohio , a nd
wasvery i rri tated. E lias als o ha d p o o rinsig ht int o t he impo r t an ce o f pa ying bills. Ba se d o n t his
ev al uati on, i t was re com

mended that El i as n

ot li ve alone f or saf ety conc ern s due

to her m em ory probl ems, b eh avi or and

l ack of i ns i ght i nto he r probl em . Eli as even tuall y was placed and l

iv ed at Lak e Ba rri ngton Woodsi n Il l i noi s f rom J une 2006 to Ma

rch 2007. Dr. Forchett i pe

rformed a mi ni-men tal-status exam

in ation i n earl y 2006. F orchett i h

as an M.D. in neurology an

d a Ph.D. in neuropharmacology an d sees appro xi

mately 1,000 pat ien

ts a year w ho suf f er f rom d em en tia or Al zh ei mer’s . Dr. Forchetti rem

em bered El i as a s b ei ng v ery re sist ant t o e valuat ion. Dr . Fo rc het t i found Elias t o be suffer ing fro m mi ld t o mo der at ive cogni tive i mpa irm ent. However, according to Dr. Forchett i, ev en i n Novem ber 2006 Elia s was partial l y com peten t. Dr. Forc hett i al so t estified that u rinary tract inf ect ions can aff

ect a pat ient’s1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

10 cogn i tiv e f unc tion . Dr. Forchetti f

urthe r testi f i ed th at she an

d other m em bers of her staf f are trai n ed to ev al ua te w h eth er f am i l y mem b er s a reacti n g i n th e b est i n terests o f th e p ati en t an d th at, i n h er opi ni on, McDonn

el l was“a bs olu tel y ” ac tin g i n the b est i

ntere sts of

El i as. The nex t t im e Eli as was ev al uated at Alex

ia n Brothers Hospital

was Septemb er 12, 2006, when she was agai n seen by SanFi li ppo . A t tha t ti me, E l i aswa s a

l rea dy at L ake B arr

i ng ton Woo ds, but was having beha vior al issues . Mc Do nnell to ld Sa nFili ppo t hat Elias wa s wa nder ing into ot her re sident s’ r oo ms and d id no t re spo nd we ll to re dire ct ion. Elias did not kno w t he
se as on, month, da

y , da te, or the l oca ti on of the pl ac e th ey we re i n te rms of sta te, c oun ty , town or ci ty, h ospi tal or fl oor. SanF i l i

ppo f el t Eli as n eede d to li

ve i n a more structur

ed en vi ronm en t. San Fi l i ppo al so sa

w El i as f or anoth er m

i ni -men tal -state ex

am i na tion on Ma rch 21, 200 7. On thi s date, Eli as onl

y kn ew that it was spri

ng. Eli as was un abl e to r ecall the words “appl e, table , and penn

y.” Th e note for this v

is it i ndicated that McDonnell m oved Eli as to a dementiaspeci fi c uni t at anot her f

aci li ty. McDonn

el l’ s report from

that faci li ty was that Elia s often ref used t o ea t an d t o t ak e h er med ica t io n. T he r e w as als o a n o t e b y Dr . Fo r ch et t i:

“ Ev en l ong -ter m mem ory appe ars seve rel y com prom i se d a t thi s ti me. The pa ti en t ca nn ot tell me nothin g [ sic ] of her y

out h, of her past in

general . She recal

ls to have been

ma rried bu t ca nn ot tel l the na me of he r h usba nd . Sh e c an not n am e h er c hi l dre n a nd doe s n ot remem ber exa ctly how ma ny she h ad.” Dr . Le ahy, bo ar d ce rt ifi

ed in clinical neur op sycho log y and clinical reha bili t at ive psycho log y, t est ifi

ed t hat t he mini-menta l-st at us e xam is a ver y brief exam, a nd t hat none of t he t es t s t he y pe r fo r m ar e s pe cific ally d es ign ed t o de t er mine c ap ac it y t o ha nd le fin an ce s. E lias like ly1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

11 had som e dif f i cul tie s i n orga ni zi ng a nd p ay i ng bi l l s, b ut Dr. Le ah

y di d not as ses s testa

men tary capa ci ty. L eah y would not gi

ve an opi ni on reg ardi

ng te stam en tary capa ci ty. Dr . R og er Weise wa s Elias’ int er nal medicine and ger iatr ic do ct or at Alexian Physicians Grou p b eg i nn i ng at the ti me s he move d to Il

l i noi s i n J ul y 200 6. W ei se wa s th e m edi cal di rector of Ol der Adul t He al th Ca reat A l ex i an Ph y si ci ans G rou p a n d a n atte n di n g p h y si ci an f or p ati en ts w i th de men t ia. E lias wa s br o ug ht t o We ise by Mc Do nne ll. D r . We ise ’s nu r se ad minist er ed a minimenta l-st at us t est and D r. Weise pe rso nally evaluat ed E lias. E lias only knew what day it w as a nd wh at tow n sh e w as i n . El i as ex h i b i ted mode ra te to s ev er e i m pai rm en t. El i as n ee de d h el p w i th instr ument al act ivities o f daily l iving, including mana ging mo ney, manag ing medicat ion, do ing l aun dry, buy i ng f ood, dri vi ng a car, ge ttin g f rom p l ace to pla ce, a nd p erf ormi ng h ome repai rs. A not e in Dr . We ise’s r eco rd s da t ed Au gus t 1, 200 6, indicat ed t hat McD onne ll called and l ef t a mess age th

at El i as w as f

orgettin g to go down to eat di

nn er and n eeded an es cort and that she was not t aki ng sh owers. Another mes sage f rom Novem

ber 21, 2006, in

dic ated that McDonnel

l reported to Dr. Wei se’s of fi ce that E li

as was wanderin

g in to ot her residents’ apartm en ts an d use d som

eone el se’ s b athroom
. McD onne ll also re po rt ed t hat Elias wa s ac cus ing people of stealin

g her belongings. Al

so, o n January

12, 2007 , McDonnell

repo rted to Dr. Weise that Eli as was n

aked i n he r apartment when

the staff at Lake Barrin

gto n W oods wo uld b

rin g her bre akf ast, an d wen t down the h al

l wi th onl y a n i ghtgown on, n o sli ppers and no rob e. Howev er, at tri al McD onnel

l den i ed m aki ng s uch statem en ts an d cl ai med th ey were “b oilerplate ve

rbi age” that appli

ed to pat ie

nts wi th mem ory probl em s. McDonnel l c la im ed that El i as mer el y us ed to v i si t a res i den

t n am ed Betty , a n d B etty di d n ot de si ref re qu en t v i si ts1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

12 an y m ore. McDonnel

l a ls o deni ed tell

in g any one at Al exi

an Brothers that Elias had f iv e car ac cid en t s, cla iming “ t ha t wa s a no t he rst o ck ve r bia ge t ha t t he y pu t in t he r e. ” M cD o nne ll
rem em be red tel l i ng the m ab out on l y threeac ci

de nts . A cc ordi

ng to Mc Don

ne l l , th e c onc l

us i on that E li as was unabl

e to take car e of her own fi nances was “generic i

nf ormation” that “they just plug i n f rom the computer i

nto t hese v

arious reports.” Mc Don ne l l de ni ed tha t sh e w asac ti ng un de r th e p owe r of

attorn ey . How ever, a c opy

of McDonnel

l’ s power of atto rney

was sen t t o Ale xian Brothers from

McDonnel

l’ s busi ness fax
ma chi ne on Jul y 17, 2006 , though

she cl ai med she could not rec al

l ev er se ndi ng i t. Duri ng th at tim e, W hi taker v i si ted El i as wi th her f ri end Bre nda Tutterow i

n O ctober 2 006. Wh itaker teleph

oned Eli as on a Sunday

and stated she would come to see her on Thursday. On Tu esd ay night, Elias ca lled ask ed Whit ake r w her e she was and s t at ed s he wa s dr esse d up and
r ea dy t o go t o din ne r . On T hu r sd ay, Whit ak er ca lled E lias t o let he rkn o w s he wa s r un ning lat e in traf f i c, an d Eli as d i d not rem

em ber that s he

wascom i ng. When Whita ker ar rived for her visit wit h Tu t t er ow , E lias was c onfu sed as t o w ho Tu t t er ro w wa s, c onfu sing her wit h Whitak er ’s da ught er , E lizabet h. T ut t er ro w t est ifi ed t hat she had kn own Eli as si nce 1990, an

d saw Elia s possi

bl y f our t o seven ti

me s and El

ia s previ ously knew who she w as. Elizabet h and T ut t er ow wer e 10 years apa rt in age, and t her e wa s a 7 5- po und physical differe nce be t wee n t he t wo . T ut t er ro w t est ifi ed t hat Elias “did no t see m li ke t he pe rso n” she kn ew, was conf

used, and was

not att entiv

e at all , “[l ]ike s

he wasn ’t there.” From Jun e 2006 to December 2006, McDonnel l v is ited Elia s one to t wo times a week, i nc l udi ng e xtensi ve l y on Sun day s. In late June or early

Jul y 2006, McDonnel

l b egan wri

ting out1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

13 ch ecks f or El i as, a nd th en be gan al so si gni ng a l l of El i as’ ch ecks

i n Jan uary 2007. Mc Do nne ll testifi ed that Eli as was n

ot confus ed, with the ex

ception of peri

ods when s

he h ad urin ary tract i nf ections a nd h ad s ome short-term m

em ory probl ems as a res ul t of thos e i

nf ections. Elias executed t he tr ansfer-o n-deat h agreement fo r her Linsco P rivate Ledg er (LP L)
acco unt o n August 1 2, 20 06, naming McDonnell as the so le benef

iciary and McDo nnel

l’s husba nd, Pet er J. M cDo nnell, as c ont ingent beneficiar y. McD onne ll test ifi ed t hat she w as a lone wi th El i as w hen she ex ecuted i t. Eli as d i d not con sul

t wi th an attorney or any other ad visor. E xc ep t fo rE lias ’ s ign at ur e, t he en t ire t y o f t he do cu men t wa s w r it t en by Mc Do nne ll. M cD o nne ll fille d o ut t he be ne fic iar y info r mat io n o n t he fo r m, list ing he r se lf a s t he 10 0% pr imar y be ne fic iar y, an d ma de no pr o visio n fo rE lias ’ o t he rch ildr en , Whit ak er an d J ay. Ac co r din g t o Mc Do nne ll, Turner se nt her the trans f er-on- death

docum en t and ask ed h er i f she woul d ha ve El i as s i gn i

t. McD onnel

l told El i as that El i as’ broke

r, Joh n Tur ner, wan ted El i as to f i l l out the f orm. McD onnel

l showed El

i as w he re to sign th

e f orm, a nd s he si gne d. In Apri l 2007, W hi taker discovered that Eli

as was m oved from

Lake Barri

ngton Woods be ca us e s he ha d b r o ke n he rhip , ha d h ip r ep lac eme nt su r ge ry, a nd wa s in t he ho sp it al. Mc Do nne ll ha d n o t info r med he r . Whit ak er wa nt ed t o visit E lias t he fo llo win g w ee k, bu t Mc Do nne ll obj ec ted be ca us e s he wou l d b e ou

t of town . McDon

ne l l the n i ns ti tuted a p as sw ord protecti on system wh

ereby no one could spea

k with El ia s unl ess they knew the pass

word. I n May

2007, Whit ak er t ele ph o ne d t he ho sp it al t o wis h E lias a h ap py M o t he r ’s Da y, b ut wa s t o ld t ha t she co uld not spe ak w ith E lias unless s he had t he pa sswo rd . Mc Do nnell inf or med Whita ker t hat she instit ut ed t he pa sswo rd beca use Elias wa s no t re ady t o t alk t o Whit ake r yet , a nd she had t he1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

14 po we ro f at t o rne y. M cD o nne ll fur t he rr efu se d t o giv e W hit ak er E lias ’ a dd r es s. Mc Do nne ll claimed she inst itu t ed t he pa sswo rd beca use she w as “p ro t ect ing” E lias’ safet y and “enc ou ra ging her fas t re co ver y.” Acc o rd ing t o Mc Do nne ll, a ft er t he “ abu se ” a t t he fa rm, Elia s “d id no t fee l safe i n th e p re se n ce of ” W h i tak er an d El i as re qu ested

n ot to b e a

l on e wi th W h i tak er . A cc ordi

n g to McDonnel

l, El ia s stated she did not want to ever be alone wi th Wh itaker. McDonn

el l c la im ed at trial that “i t t urns out” Whi

taker had been

verbal ly abusi ng Elia s f or “yea rs.” A l thou gh Mc Don ne l l cl ai med tha t sh e f i rs t ac ted pur su an t to the ge ne ral dur ab l e p owe r of at t or ney on Ap ril 2, 2 007 , w hen E lias bro ke he r hip, che cks written by McDonnel l dated August 31 , 20 06 , Se pt emb er 1, 20 06 , Se pt emb er 11 , 20 06 , an d n ume r o us o t he rch ec ks , st at ed “d ur ab le po wer of a t t or ney,” “DPO A” o r “P OA” o n t he memo line. Elias’ N at ional Cit y Bank a cco unt was i n he r nam e onl y;McDonnel

l was not on the account. McDonnell wi re-transferred $20,000 from Eli as’ Nati onal

Ci ty Ban k account to a j oint account i n he r nam e and El ia s’ n am e at Barrin gto n Ban k & Trust on Decemb er 27, 2006. That join t account was opened on July 14, 200 6, f or “ con ve ni en ce ” a nd wa s p ri mari l y f un de d w i th E l i as ’ m

one y . A l l the ch ec ksdra wn on that account were written by McDonnel

l. McD onnel

l wrote check n

umb er 2526 dated Decemb er 30, 200 6, t o he rse lf f

or $11 ,7 50. 00, and w ro t e “Gift fr om mo m.” Mc Do nnell and her husba nd ha d a tax l i en tha t wa s p l ac ed

on th ei r Ba rri ng ton prope rty on A pri l 19, 200 4, i

n th e a moun t of $2 6, 65 0, wh ich wa s r ele as ed o n Ap r il 19 , 20 07 . Ho we ve r , Mc Do nne ll cla imed she us ed o nly fun ds f rom her b usi ness to relea se the tax l

ie n. On Ma

y 15, 2007, McDonn

el l wrote check
nu mbe r10 27 t o he r se lf dr aw n o n E lias ’ a cc o un t fo r$1 1, 50 0. Mc Do nne ll t es t ified t ha t E lias t o ld her i f she ev er neede d m

oney to hel p he rsel f
.1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

15 Though McDonn

el l ref used Wh itaker any in form ation when El

ia s broke her h

ip, W hi taker fou nd E lias’ add re ss in t he White Pag es. Fo r six we eks , Whit ake r a nd Ja y dro ve t o C hicago and visit ed E lias fo rt hr ee da ys o f t he we ek
. Whit ak er t es t ified t ha t du r ing t his t ime E lias wa s “t o t ally
co o ke d, ” o blivio us t o her su rr o und ings . E lias w as in a p sych iat ric wa rd bec au se t he h o sp it al st aff stated s he wascom ba tiv e an d not wi l l i ng to take her medi cation. El i as p ass ed away

on Ju ne 20, 200 7. Mc Don

n el l f axed a c opy of El i as ’ d ea th certif i ca te t o L PL a nd o n July 30, 200 7, sent a r equ est t hat all of t he mone y in Eli as’ L PL a cco unt be t r an sfe rr ed t o Mc Do nne ll’s LP L a cc o un t an d a no t he rba nk ac co un t . Mc Do nne ll had pr ev io us ly f ax ed h er dura bl e gen eral power of attorney to Turner on

Feb ruary 20, 200 7. As of

Jul y 31, 2007, the amount i

n Elia s’ LPL a

ccount was $440,743.11. The amount of $398,808.19 was transf erred to McDonn

ell ’s ac count. A f

urther trans fe

r of $40,000

was m ade f rom El i as’ L PL
acc ount to McDon

ne l l ’spers onal

acc ount at Ba

rri ngton Ban k & Tr ust. Dur ing t he ent ire six we eks Whitak er and J ay wer e visiting E lias, Mc Do nnell claim ed s he
wasthe exe cutor of El

i as’ estate. However, on August 28, 2007, after locatin g “l ost legal docum en ts, ” M cD on

n el l di sc ov er ed

W h i tak er wa s a ctual l y th e e x ecutor

an d c al l ed W h i tak er to notify her she was the executor and that she needed to hi re an att orney because there was a confl ict o f i nterest. Ho wever, McDonn el l di d not pro vi

de Wh itaker a copy

of Elia s’ wi

ll at that tim e. W hi taker re cei

ve d a copy

of the wi l l af ter he r coun sel reque sted i

t. Eve n aft er disco ver ing t he will which bequ eat hed t he bulk o f Elias’ est at e in equ al po rt ions to McDonnel

l a nd W hi taker, McDonnell c ontinued to write chec ks usi ng the m oney she h ad transferred f

rom Eli as’ LPL brokerage account. McDonnel l wrote check n

umb er 1002 from h

er1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

16 Ba rr ing t o n ba nk ac co un t da t ed Au gu st 31 , 20 07 , pa yable t o he r se lf fo r$1 5, 00 0, wit h a memo stati ng “ $10,00 0 retai

ner,” b ut McD onnel

l could not rem

em ber what the “

retai ner” wa s f

or. Mc Don n el l wr ote c h ec k n um b er 10 05 da ted Septem b er 19 , 20 07 , to her

h us b an d f or $ 1,5 00 , to reim burse h im for clot hes M cDonnel

l h ad bought hersel

f. McDonn

el l wrote check n

umb er 1006 dated September 26, 2007, to her husban d for $3,000, also f

or clothes. McDonnel

l wrote check
nu mbe r10 07 da t ed Se pt emb er 26 , 20 07 , pa yable t o he r se lf, fo r$1 0, 00 0, bu t co uld no t ex pla in what that c he ck

wa s f or. M cD onn

el l wrote ch ec k n um be r 10 08 i n th e a moun t of $5, 525 .58 , f

or l an ds ca pi n g a t h er h ous e. Mc Don

n el l wrote c h ec k n um b er 10 12 i n th e a moun t of $3 ,03 4.9 6 to Ma cy ’s . M cD on

n el l also w rotethree checks totali

ng $50,000, pay

abl e to herself

, in Novem ber 2007, a nd th e bul k of thes e f unds we re the n de posi ted i nto McD onnel

l ’sA.G . Edwards ac coun

t. McD onnel

l di d not kn

ow i f she kept the rem

ai nde r of th ese f unds i n c ash
. Me an wh ile, t he r e w er e d eb t s fo rE lias wh ich r ema ine d u np aid
. Ac co r din g t o Mc Do nne ll, she w as a dvised by her at t or ney not t o p ay the debt s bec aus e t her e wa s a q ues t ion whe t her she
wa s th e e xe cu tor. Th ere wa s a n u np ai d IR S tax bi l l f or th e y ea r 20 06 i n th e a moun t of $3 1, 43 8. 90 . Mc Do nne ll did no t se t as ide fun ds t o pa y t ho se t ax es be ca us e s he wa s a dv ise d “ it
wasgoi ng to b e a wash” b ase d on w ri te-off s, an d thus would not owe a

ny taxe s. Howe

ver, a l etter f rom th e IRS s tated tha t the am ount wa s i

nde ed owed
. Afte r Whit ake r be came e xecu t or and r ece ived let t er s o f office o n Sep t ember 1 4, 200 7, she
ma de an i nve ntory lis t o f al l the i tems i n the storage uni

ts, with the assi

stance of h

er brother Jay , and made a

l i st of i tem s tha t were m i ssi ng, i nc l udi ng m i ssi ng f urni ture, j ewel

ry and f l atware . Bec aus e t he st or age unit s we re an es t at e mat t er , t he st or age facility do uble- lock ed t he unit s and1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

17 di d not al l ow Wh i taker to open

the u ni ts wi thout the prese

nc e of som eone f rom th e f aci l i ty. W h i tak er took ph otos of

th e i tem s a n d di d n ot remov e a

n y th i n g f rom th e storage

un i ts. Pri or to Whitak er beco ming execu t or , o nly Eli as, McD onne ll and her husba nd had keys a nd ac ces s t o t he storage u ni ts. Mc Do nne ll re sp o nd ed t o Whit ak er ’s line- it em mis sing pie ce s by s t at ing eit he rt he y we r e in her posse ssi

on an d were gi f ted to her, s

houl d be i n storage, or sh

e di d not kn ow wh ere they

were . McD onnel

l cam e i nto poss ess i on of

a m aj ority of the i tem s sh e h ad af ter Eli as m

oved to Ill i noi s. Mc Don ne l l mai nta i ne d that El

i asga ve he r a bl uel am p, g ol d c res

t ri ng , pe arl ri ng , di ni ng room t ab le, an d a hig hbo y pr ev io us ly as gift s fr o m Elia s, as we ll as a s ec r et ar y de sk giv en t o Mc Do nne ll by Elias as a gi ft f

rom McDonn

el l’ s grandm

ot her. McDonn

el l retai ned n ume rous items

in her possession that she f

el t were “suscepti

ble to t hef

t,” which were not discovered un

til June 9, 2008, wh en she brough

t the i tem s to the storage un

i ts f or appra i sal
. Af ter Whi taker becam

e executor, she al so learn ed of the outstandin

g debts f or Elias that
wer e no t paid, t hat Elias’ LP L bro ker age acc ou nt had be en co mplet ely withdr awn p ur sua nt t o t he transfer-on-death docum

ent nam in g McDonnel

l a s the sole

ben efi ci ary, an d that t he com

bi ned
am ount o f m oney in Eli as’ rem ai ni ng accounts was l

ess than $3,000. Whi

taker also l earned that El i as’ 2006 ta

xe s we re not fi l ed b eca use McD onnel

l di d not ask the

acc ountan

t to fil e the

return . W h i tak er di sc ov er ed

th at th e n ea rl y $3 1,0 00 wa s owed

b ec au se Mc Don n el l i n str uc ted Tur n er to sell s ome of El

ia s’ Exx on stock in 2006 an

d there was a capi

tal gai n. Turner told Wh

itaker that McD onnel

l had i nstructed h

i m to sell the stock be caus e the

re wa s a m

argi n c al l . Howev er, Wh i taker di scovered th

at there wasno m

argi n c al l
. McDonnel

l c la im s Eli as sold the

stock.1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

18 Su bse qu en t ly, W hit ak er filed a p et it io n t o r ec o ve rt he as se t s M cD o nne ll t o o k. At t r ial, Dr. Daniel

Marso n, a pr ofesso r and direct or in the depart ment of neuro logy and Al zheim er’s Dis ease Rese arch Cen

ter at t he Univ

ersity of Alabam

a at Birmi ngham, test if

ied as McDonnell’s expe rt . Ma rso n also has a law de gr ee. Mar so n ack now ledge d t hat Elias lack ed c ont ra ct ual and f i n an ci al ca paci ty , but testifi

ed that “testamen

tary capaci

ty requi res the l owest level

of m ental capaci ty am ong the fi nan ci al capaci ties that are di scussed i

n the l aw.” Marson opin

ed that Eli as pr ob ab l y h ad testam en tar y ca paci ty on A ug us t 12 , 20 06 , w

h en sh e e x ecute d th

e transf er -on-d ea th
certif i ca te des i gn ati n g M cD on

n el l as th e b en ef i ci ar y , a n d th at sh e w as

pr ob ab l y n ot s ub j ec t to un due i nf l ue nc e a t tha t ti me. H e op i

ne d that al

thou gh Eli aswa s “ cl

ea rl y ” suf f eri ng f rom A lzh ei mer’ s a t thi s ti me a nd “ wa s on a p ath of de cl i ne ,” s he m us t be ac cord ed a p res um ption of capacity that has to be rebutt ed, and neither Dr. For chetti nor Dr . Leahy ev aluated Eli as’ testamentary

capaci ty. Marson di

d not feel there was strong evidence of loss of such h is to rical kno wledg e as so ciat ed w ith t est ament ar y capa city unt il March 2 007 . Ma rso n re lied on t he depositi on testim

ony of Dr. Forchett i wh

erein Forchetti i

ndicated her bel

ie f that McDonn

el l was actin g in Eli as’ b est in terest, as wel

l a s the testim

ony of L ax . However, in

arriv in g at his opini on, Marson di d not review the f oll owing: the m

edi cal
re co rd s o f Dr. King, includ ing Whitak er ’s let t er s st at ing her co ncer ns; Whita ker ’s de po sitio n; and t he de po sitio n of D r. Weise. Mar so n co nced ed t hat Elias missing car payment s and being involved in an a ccide nt wo uld be r elevant co nsider at ions if t hey wer e r elat ed t o incipient de men ti a, a s w oul

d b e El i ascon f us i ng Tuttera’ s daugh

ter f or h er ow n g ran dda ugh ter. Ma rs on al so c onc ed ed

asrel evan t Dr. Le ah

y ’s note of Septem be r 12 , 20 06, i

nd i ca ti ng tha t Eli aswa s n

ot1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

19 aware of the pl

ace, month, day

, date, o r year. Marson f

urther conceded i

t was relev

ant that when Eli as went to an atto rney

on Novem

ber 16, 2005, she m

ade no chan

ges to her wil

l, b ut when El

ia s was alone wit h McD onne ll on Aug ust 12, 200 6, she e xecu t ed t he t ra nsfer- on- dea t h do cument le avi ng he r entire acc ount t o McDonnel l. Mars on conceded that it “i s possi ble” that Elias lacked t es t ame nt ar y ca pa cit y, if h e c o nsid er ed ad dit io na l ev ide nc e t ha t Mc Do nne ll wa s c o mple t ely handling E lias’ chec k wr iting a nd bill payments, and w as a ssist ing her wit h her medical t re at ment to the excl

usi on of other f am i l y mem bers. The tr i al cou rt f oun d th at E l i as l ac ke d th e m en tal ca paci ty to ex ecute th e transf

er -on-d ea th for m for he r LP L bro ker age acc ou nt , a nd ent er ed jud gment on Au gus t 11, 100 9, or der ing McD onne ll to re t ur n $47 1, 750 in cash and all per so nal pr op er t y, exc ept for t he t hre e ite ms she already had, t o E li

as’ est ate . On No vemb er 19 , 200 9, t he tr ial cou rt also gra nted Whitaker ’s counsel ’s peti

tion f or at to rney ’s f

ees i n the am ount o f $201,227.50 and costs of $33,135.85, fi ndi ng that these f

ees and c osts were fai

r and reasonab le , but order ed that they b e assess ed aga inst t he es t at e and did no t gr ant Whitak er ’s su pplement al pet itio n re que st ing t hat t he fees and costs b e as ses sed

agai nst McDon

ne l l . Both W

hi taker a nd McDon

ne l l appe aled. AN AL YSIS McD onne ll appea ls bot h t he o rd er allowing a t t or ney fees a nd co st s, a nd t he judg ment order of Au gust 11 , 2009, f

i ndi ng th at El i as l acke d m en tal capa ci ty to ex ecute th e testam en tary t ra nsfer o f her LP L acc ou nt and t hat McD onne ll exercise d und ue influence t o e ffect a fra udu lent tran sf er. W hi tak er c ros s- appe al s on

l y the orde r as se ss i ng attorn ey f ee s ou t of the es tatean d n ot agai nst McDonn

el l pe rsonally . We di scuss the appea

l of the judgm

ent order o f A

ugust 11, 2009,1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

20 f i rst. I. Judgmen

t Fin din g Lack of Me

ntal C apaci

ty an d Fraudulent Transf

er and Un due Inf lue nce Mc Don ne l l appe al s f rom the j udg men t of A ugu st 1 1, 2 009 , f

i nd i ng both l ac k of testam en tary capa ci ty a nd u ndu e i nf l uen ce a nd s eeks rev ersa l of the order d

i recti ng h er to return to the es tate $471 ,750 i

n c ash and pers onal

property and rem and f or a ne w tri al
. In a c i tation proce edi

ng , th e p rob atecou

rt i s em pow ere d to de

term i ne the ti tl e a nd righ t of property and en ter such orde

r as th e ca se re qui

res. In re Estate of Kolbinger , 175 Ill . App. 3d 315, 32 2, 529 N .E.2d 823 , 827 (1 988). Th e Prob ate Act of 1 975 (Pr obate A ct) (755 ILCS 5/1 -1 et seq . (We st 2008 )) provides, i n perti nen t part: “(a) Upon the f

il in g of a petition therefor by the representativ

e or by an y other per so n inter est ed in t he es t at e o r, in the c ase of a n est at e o f a war d by any ot her per so n, the cou rt sh al l orde r a c i tation to i ss uef or th e a ppe ara nc e b ef ore i t of an y pe rs on w hom t he pe t it io ne rbe lieve s ( 1) t o ha ve co nc ea led , co nve r t ed o remb ez zle d o rt o ha ve in his pos se ss i on or

con trol an y pe rs ona l prop erty , b ooksof ac cou nt, pa pe rs or ev i de nc esof debt or t itl

e to lands wh

ic h be longe d to a person whose estate is bei ng adm in is tered in that court or whi

ch be l ongs to hi s estate or to hi s represe ntati ve ***. * * * (d) The court ma

y e xam in e the respondent on oath whether or not t he peti tioner ha s p r o ve d t he mat t er s a lleg ed in t he pe t it io n, may h ea rt he ev id en ce o ffe r ed by a ny p ar t y, may det er mine all quest ions o f tit le, c laims of adve rse t itle and t he r ight of p ro per t y and may enter such or ders and judgm ent as the case requ ires.” 755 ILCS 5/16 -1(a) , (d) (West1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

21 2008)
. Th e ob j ec ti ve s of a c i tation proce edi

ng un de r th e Pr oba te Act a re to ob tai n th e re turn of pers onal property be l ongi ng to the estate b ut i n the poss ess i on of

, or bei ng c once aled b

y , others or to obtain

i nf orma tion to recover estate property . In re Estate of Kolbinger , 175 Ill . App. 3d at 322, 52 9 N.E.2d

at 827. T o r ec o ve rpr o pe r t y in a c it at io n p r o ce ed ing , an ex ec ut o rmus t init ially establ is h a prima facie case that the propert y a t issue b el ongs to t he deceden t’s estate; the burden t hen shifts t o t he r esp ond ent t o p ro ve his o r he r r ight t o p os sess ion by clear and c onvincing
evi den ce. In re Estate of Casey , 155 Il l . Ap p. 3d 11 6, 121- 22, 507N.E.2d 9 62, 966 (1987 ). In th e c i tati on pr oce ed i n g, W h i tak er al l eg ed th at th e L PL ac cou n t m on ey b el on ge d to El i as ’s estate an d s oug h t to re cov er th e f un dsb y setti n g a si de th e L PL ac cou n t tra n sf er -on-d ea th
execute d b

y El i as to tra n sf er th e f un dsto M cD on

n el l . D i sp osi ti on s of f un dsi n pa y men t-on -d ea th
acc ounts a

re testam en tary di sposi tions. In re Esta te of Gubala , 81 Ill . App. 2d 378, 382, 225 N. E. 2d 6 46, 649 (1 967 ). Su ch a d ispo sitio n is oft en r efer re d t o a s a “will subst itu t e, ” de fined by
se ct io n 7 . 1 o f t he Re st at eme nt as “a n a rr an ge men t r es pe ct ing pr o pe r t y o rco nt r ac t r igh t s t ha t is est ablished d ur ing t he do nor ’s life, und er which ( 1) t he r ight t o p os sess ion o r e njoyment of t he pr op er t y or t o a co nt ra ct ual pa yment shift s o ut side o f pro bat e t o t he do nee a t t he do nor ’s de at h; and ( 2) subs t ant ial li

fet ime right s o f do mini

on, co nt ro l, po sses sion, or enjoyment ar e r et ained by the d onor.” (In

terna l quotati on m

arks omi tted.) Handelsman v. Handelsman , 366 Ill . App. 3d 1122, 1 130, 85 2 N.E.2d

862, 86 9 (200 6) (quoti

ng R estatem en t (Thi rd) of Property §7.1 (2 003)). “A wil l a nd a wi ll substi tut e m ay coexi st.” Handelsman , 366 Ill . App. 3d at 1130, 852 N.E .2d at 869.1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

22 Gr o un ds fo rinv alid at ing a w ill inc lu de un du e in flu en ce , lac k o f t es t ame nt ar y ca pa cit y, f raud, re voca tion , and ignora

nc e of conten ts. Hall v. Eaton , 259 Ill . App. 3d 319, 321, 631 N.E.2d 805, 807 ( 1994). When ei ther lack of

testamentary

capaci ty or undue i

nf lue nce is f ound,
such a f i ndi ng i nv al i datesthe w

hol e i nstrumen t. Kelley v. First State Bank of Princeton , 81 I ll. A pp . 3d 40 2, 4 15 , 40 1 N .E. 2d

24 7, 2 56 -5 7 ( 19 80 ). V oi d g i f ts o f pers on al pr ope rty th en f al l i n to a gen eral resi duary be quest. In re Estate of Brach , 147 Ill . App. 3d 819, 821, 498 N.E. 2d 661, 662 (19 86) ; Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. City of Waukegan , 333 Ill . 577, 581-82, 165 N. E. 348, 350 (1 929). Under Elia s’ wi

ll the resi due of her es

tate, after a beque st of $5,000 to Eli as’ son J ay , was to pass i n equal shares to Whi

taker and McDonn

el l. The trial court found that the LPL transf er on death was i

nva li d because Eli as lacked testamen

tary capaci

ty an d McDonnel

l wi el ded undue i nf l uen ce a nd ordered th

e LPL f unds an d other p erson

al property returned to El i as’ estate. A trial
co ur t ’s find ing t ha t ce r t ain pr o pe r t y belo ng s t o t he es t at e w ill no t be dis t ur be d o n a pp ea l un les s it is agai nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce, as the tri al

court in such proceedi

ngs is authorized to determ i ne al l questions of

titl e, cl ai m s of adverse titl e an d property

ri ghts
. In re Estate of Joutsen , 100 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 37 6, 380, 4 26 N.E.2 d 942, 9 46 (19 81).

A . L ac k of

Te sta men tar y Ca paci ty McD onnel

l argue s tha

t the tri al court’s determ i na tion that El i as l acke d testam

en tary ca pa ci ty i s a gai ns t the man i f es t we i gh t of the ev i de nc e. “ Si

nc e the l aw pre su mesevery pe rs on san e un til the c ontrary

i s proved, th e burden

restson the

party ass erti ng th e lack of testam en tary capa ci ty to prove i

t.” (Inter na l quotati on m

arks omi tted.) In re Esta te of Barth , 339 Ill . App. 3d1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

23 651, 665, 792 N.E. 2d 315, 326 (2003) (quo ting Wiszow aty v. B aumgard , 257 Ill . App. 3d 812, 816 , 6 29 N .E .2 d 62 4, 629 (1 994 )) . “T est ament ar y capa city r equ ires t hat t he t est at or have sufficient menta l abili

t y to kno w and re member t he nat ur al objec t s o f her bo unt y, t o c omp re hend the kin d and ch aracter of propert y h

el d, and to make di sposition thereof accordin g to some pl

an form ed i n the testato r’s m

in d.” In re Estat e of Osbo rn , 234 Ill . App. 3d 651, 658, 599 N.E. 2d 1329, 1333 (1992) (citin

g In re Estate of Wrigley , 104 Ill . App. 3d 1008, 1017, 433 N.E. 2d 995, 1003 ( 1982) ). The par t ies disp ut e t he r elevant dat es fo r a sses sing co mpet ence , sp ecifically the effect ive date of the LPL transf

er-on-death instrumen

t. Whi taker argues that Elias

la cked the m

ental capaci ty to execute the transfer on death i nstrume nt, and that the tim

in g of del iv ery of an i n str um en t n am i n g b en ef i ci ari es i s rel ev an t to s h ow w

h at th e dec eden t' s i n ten t wa s, ci ti n g to Kniffen v. Knif

fen , 119 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 10 6, 110, 4 56 N.E.2 d 659, 6 62 (19 83). Howe ver, Kniffen is inappo site . I n Kniffen , the iss ue was the deceden

t’s in tent in c han gin g a ben efi ci ary an d whether he took suf f i ci en t “posi tiv e ac tion ” to ef f ect a cha nge i n the des i gna

ted b enef i ci ary . Kniffen , 119 Ill . App. 3d at 110, 456 N.E .2d at 662. Mc Do nne ll maint ain s t ha t t he t iming o f de liver y o f t he t r an sfe ro n d ea t h d o cu men t is irrel evan t, as it is undi sputed that it was executed i n A ugust 2006. We agree. For evidence in
ca se s i nv ol vi ng que sti ons of men tal ca pa ci ty an d un due i nf l ue nc e to b e re l evan

t, i t m us t be ar on t he fact or s o f menta l capa city and undu e influence e xisting a t t he t ime of t he exe cut ion o f the testam en tary docum en t in i ssue. In re Estat e of B erry , 170 Ill . App. 3d 454, 458, 524 N.E. 2d 68 9, 6 92 (1 98 8) . W

h en con str ui n g th e date up on wh i ch a l eg al i n str um en t wa s ex ecute d, t

h e date1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

24 on the in strumen t is gen erall y c onsi dered prima facie evi den ce of the date of

ex ecuti on. Sterdjevich v. RMK Management Corp. , 343 Il l . Ap p. 3d 1, 1 4, 796 N .E.2d 114 6, 1158 (2003 ). Ho weve r, we r eco gnize t he exist ence of su bst ant ial discre t ion in t he t rial co ur t t o d et er mine the t ime frame wit hin which event s co ncer ning t he t est at or ar e r elevant t o t he ca pac ity o f the dece den t in a wi l l contes t. In re Estat e of B erry , 170 Ill . App. 3d at 458, 524 N.E .2d at 692. Here , the date of

ex ecuti on of the L PL transf er-on- death

i nstrumen t was A ugust 12, 2006 . The m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce sh ows that Whi

taker met her burden

of establ is hi ng that Eli

as la cked testamen

tary capaci

ty on that date. The evidence at trial establ is hed that Eli

as was al ready suff ering m oder ate t o severe co gni

tive i mpai rment when McDonnel

l b rou ght Elias to Illi

nois, whi ch McDonn

el l h ersel f wi tnessed. SanF il

ippo eval uated Elias f

or her mi ni-men tal-status
exam i na ti on a t Al ex i an Broth ers on D ec em

be r 23 , 20 05, an

d a t tha t ti me El i asal rea dy ha d poor in sight in to her f in ances, an d it was recom

me nded that Eli

as not li ve al one for saf

ety concerns due t o he rmemo ry and be ha vio rpr o ble ms. I n Ju ly 20 06 , Dr . We ise ’s ex amina t io n r ev ea led E lias o nly kne w wh at day i t was a nd w ha t town sh e was i n. El i as exh i bi ted m oderate to severe i

m pai rm en t. Eli as neede d hel

p with i nstrume ntal a ctivi ties of dai ly li vi ng, i ncl udin g ma nagi ng m oney . On A ug ust 1, 20 06 , M cD on

n el l h er se l f l ef t a m es sa ge th at E l i as di d n ot al wa y s e at, f org ot to go to he r m eal s a nd wa s n ot taki ng sh owe rs . Th

i s w assh ortl y be f ore th e e xe cu ti on of the tran sf er on death form

on August 12, 2006. Even b efore McDonn el l m oved Eli as to Illi nois , Elias had several car accidents, one whi

ch sh e could n ot even remem ber, and di

d not remem

ber exe cuting a note on her ve hi cle. Al so very cl ose to the tim

e of exe cution of the transf er on death form , on September 12,1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

25 20 06 , E lias did no t kn o w t he se as o n, mo nt h, da y, d at e, o rt he lo ca t io n o f wh er e s he wa s in t er ms of state, count y, town or city , hospital or fl oor . Another m

essage f rom McDonn

el l on Nove

mb er 21, 200 6, indicat ed t hat Elias wa s wa nder ing into ot her re sident s’ ap ar t ments and w as a ccu sing people of s

teali ng he r belongin

gs. On Jan

uary 12, 2007, McDonn

el l reported to Dr. Wei se that Eli as was n aked i n he r apartment when

the staff at Lake Barrin

gto n W oods wo uld b

rin g her br ea kfa st , an d s he we nt do wn t he ha ll wit h o nly a n igh t go wn o n. By M ar ch 21 , 20 07 , E lias o nly knew that i

t was sprin

g, and Elia s had b een m

oved to a dementi a-speci fi c uni t. By that tim

e, Eli as co uld no t re call the name o f her hu sband or childre n, no r c ou ld she e ven r emember ho w many chi l dren she h ad. M cDon

ne l l ’sex pert di d not con sider th e bul

k of thi s ev i den ce. Thu s, t he manifest weight of t he evide nce e st ablished t hat Elias did not co mpre hend t he kin d and ch aracter of her propert y or m ake proper disposi

tions, and di

d not have suf

fi ci ent me ntal abi li ty regardi ng the n atural obj ects of her b ounty. See In re Estat e of Osbo rn , 234 Ill . App. 3d at 658, 599 N.E .2d at 1333
. We f in d the trial court ’s determi

nation tha t Eli as lacked capaci

ty at th e ti me of th e e x ecuti

on of th e L PL tra n sf er -on-d ea th docum en t and transf

ers of personal property wasnot aga

i nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. B. Undue Inf

lue nce an d Fraudulent Transf

er Mc Don ne l l ne xt a rguestha t the tri al cou rt actua l l y mad e n o f i nd i ng tha t the tran sf er on death certif

ic ate was executed as the product of undue i nf lue nce. McDonn

el l s uggests that W h i tak er ’s argu m en t f or a f f i rm an ce on th e iss ue of un du e i n f l uen ce i n re al i ty se ek s a n al ter n ate
rul ing find ing un du e in flu en ce wh er e t he r e w as no ne , if w e f ind no lac k o f t es t ame nt ar y ca pa cit y. Howev er, the conc epts of

a pres um pti on of a f raudu l en t trans action due

to a fi duci ary1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

26 relationshi

p and un due i nf lue nce are i nex tricabl y i ntertwined, an

d the court did i

n f act fi nd that McDonnel

l us ed undue i

nf lue nce. Undue

in fl uence n ecessary to in val ida te a wil l i s that in fl uence which pr event s t he t est at or fro m exerc ising her o wn fre e will in the disp os itio n of he r e st at e, and it m ust be di rectly connected wi

th the executi on of the i

nstrume nt, operat e at the tim

e i t was
made, a nd b e di rected toward procu

ri ng th e wi l l i n f av or of a p arti cul

ar par ty or pa rtie s. In re Estate of Maher , 23 7 I l l . A pp . 3d 10 13 , 10 17 , 60 6 N .E. 2d

46 , 49 -5 0 ( 19 92 ). A

pa yab l e- on -d ea

th account is a w

il l s ubsti tut e ( In re Estate of Waitkevich , 25 Ill . App. 3d 513, 518, 323 N.E. 2d 545, 549 (1975)), and thus the sam e requirem

ents to show undue i

nf lue nce appl y to set aside di sposi tions of pay ab l e-on-d eath acc ounts. “A prima facie ca se o f un du e in flue nc e is mad e o ut wh er e: ( 1) a fid uc iar y re lat io nsh ip
ex i ste d b etw een

a te sta tor a n d a pers on re ce i v i n g a su b sta n ti al b en ef i t un der the wi l l

(c om pa re d to ot her s who have a n equ al claim to a t est at or s bo unt y); (2 ) t he t est at or was in a dep ende nt si tuation in whi ch the sub stantial

ben efi ci aries were in domi nan t ro le s; (3) the testato r reposed t rus t an d c o nfid en ce in su ch be ne ficia r ies ; a nd ( 4) a w ill wa s p r ep ar ed o rpr o cu r ed an d e xe cu t ed in ci rcumstances whe

rein such b enef

ic ia ries were in strumen tal or partici

pated.” Pedott v. Dorman , 19 2 I ll. A pp . 3d 85 , 90
- 91 , 54 8 N . E . 2d 54 1, 54 4 ( 19 89 )
. A fid uc iar y o rco nfid en t ial r ela t io nsh ip
may be f oun d i n on e of two w ay s. A f i duc i ary rel ati ons hi p m ay be f oun d to e xi st a s a matte r of l aw f rom th e r el ati on sh i p of th e p ar ti es , s uc h as an attor n ey -c l i en t re l ati on sh i p, o r m ay b e f oun d to exi st by the fac ts of a particul

ar si tuation, such as a rel

ationsh ip wh ere trust is reposed on one si de
and resul ts i n s uperi ority and i nf l uen ce on the othe r si de. In re Estate of Long , 311 Ill . App. 3d 959, 96 3, 726 N .E.2d 187 , 190 (2 000). A power of attorney gi ve s ri se to a ge

neral f i duci ary1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

27 relati onsh i p be tween the g ran tor of the power a nd th e gran tee as a m atter of l aw. White v. Raines , 21 5 I l l . A

pp . 3d 49 , 59 , 57 4 N .E. 2d

27 2, 2 79 (1 99 1) . “ If

a p eti ti on er sh ows th at a fidu cia ry re lat io nsh ip e xist s, an y t r an sa ct io n be t we en pa r t ies in w hic h t he ag en t pr o fit s is t ypic ally pr esu med t o be frau dulent and t he ag ent has t he bur den o f pro ving by clear a nd co nvincing evi dence that the transacti on was f ai r and equi table and di d not result from

the agent’s un

due i nf l uen ce ov er the

pri nc i pal .” (In terna l quotati on m

arks omi tted.) Janowiak v. Tiesi , 40 2 I ll. App. 3d 997, 1005, 932 N.E.2d 569, 578 (2010) (quot in g In re Estate of Miller , 334 Ill . App. 3d 692, 698, 778 N.E. 2d 262, 267 (2002), citin g In re Esta te of Teall , 329 Ill . App. 3d 83, 87, 768 N.E .2d 124 , 12 9 (2 002 )) ; Lemp v. Hauptmann , 170 Ill . App. 3d 753, 757, 525 N.E. 2d 203, 206 (1988 ). Co nt r ar y t o Mc Do nne ll's a ss er t io n, t he t r ial c o ur t ind ee d d id fin d u nd ue influ en ce , as is clear f rom th e court’ s wri

tten order: “O nc e W hit ak er sho we d t ha t a fid uc iar y re lat io nsh ip e xist s be t we en Mc Do nne ll
and [El i as] th e pres um pti on i s tha

t a trans f er b etween M cDon

ne l l and [El i as] i s f raudu l en t. McDonnel

l h as to co me

forward [with] cl

ear and conv

in ci ng ev ide nce that the transf

er wa s no t t he r es ult o f undue influence
. Mc Do nne ll’s t es t imo ny is n o t cr ed ible a nd all s ums m ust b e return

ed.” (E m phasi s ad ded.) McD onne ll does not dispu t e t hat t he LP L t ra nsfer- on- dea t h do cument was exec ut ed, and the p erson

al property and cas h tran sf ers a l l occurre d, af

ter McD onnel

l be cam e El i as’ f i duci ary unde r t he ge ner al po wer of a t t or ney. H ow ever , Mc Do nnell claim s she d id no t “act ivate ” t he po we ro f at t o rne y un t il Elia s br o ke he rhip in Ap r il 20 07 . He rcla im is ne it he rleg ally no rfac t ua lly1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

28 soun d. Fi rst, i t is wel l estab l i shed th at a power of a ttorney gi ve s ri se to a ge

neral f i duci ary relati onsh i p asa m atter of l aw. White , 215 Ill . App. 3d at 59, 574 N.E .2d at 279. S econd, Eli as ex ec ut ed a s ep ar at e h ea lt h c ar e p o we ro f at t o rne y t o go ve rn a ny med ica l de cis io ns. T he du r ab le po wer of a t t or ney gr ant ed br oa d po wer s t o M cDo nnell to handle a nd disp os e o f Elias’ re al and pers onal property . The LPL transf

er-on-death document was ex ecuted after Eli

as’ gran t o f the gen

eral du ra b l e p owe r of attor n ey to M cD on

n el l . L i kewi se , the a

l l eg ed gif ti n g of th e p er son

al pr operty occur red after t he power o f atto rney was ex ecuted and McDo nnel

l b ecame El

ias’ fi duciary . Thus, Mc Don n el l wa s E l i as ’ f

i du ci ar y at th e ti me of th e ex ecuti

on of th e L PL tra n sf er -on-d ea th docum en t and the d i sposi tion of the pers onal

property . The trial

court correct ly

determi ned that t her e wa s a p re sumpt ion t hat t hese t ra nsac t ions w er e fra udu lent a nd Mc Do nnell had t o p ro ve by cl ear and conv

in ci ng ev ide nce that these transactions di d not result from her undue i

nf lue nce over El i as. See White , 215 Ill . App. 3d at 59, 574 N.E .2d at 279 (t he t ra nsac t ions be t wee n t he de f en da n t an d th e dec eden t occ ur re d a f ter th e g ra n t of th e p owe r of attor n ey b y th e dec eden

t; t her efo re , t he pr esu mpt ion wa s t hat t he t ra nsac t ions w er e fra udu lent a nd t he de fendant had t he bu r de n o f pr o ving by cle ar an d c o nvin cin g e vid en ce t ha t t he t r an sa ct io ns w er e fa ir a nd eq uit ab le to the dec eden

t and di d not res

ul t from his un due i nf l uen ce ov er the

dece den t). McDonnel

l f ai le d to come f

orward with suf

fi ci ent evi dence to rebut the presumpti on that t he ex ec ut io n o f t he t r an sfe r - o n- de at h fo r m wa s fr au du len t . Ba se d o n t he ev ide nc e a t t r ial, Mc Do nne ll cle ar ly eng ag ed in a pa t t er n o f inc r ea sing ly iso lat ing E lias fr o m all o t he rfamily
mem be rs , es pe ci al l y W hi tak er, move d El

i asaw ay f rom Oh i o to Ill i noi s, took ove r al l as pe ctsof1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

29 Eli as’ f in ances a nd he al th care, and abus ed her f

iduc ia ry duty under the gen

eral power of attorney i n e f f ecti ng th e LPL trans f er on d eath di sposi tion and taki ng El i as’ pers onal

property . The evidenc e at t rial est ablished t hat McD onne ll gave E lias the LPL t ra nsfer- on- dea t h for m and merely t old Elias t hat Tu rne r a t LPL want ed he r t o fill out t he fo rm. S he wa s alo ne wit h Elias and fi ll ed out t he en

tire f orm, other t han

Eli as’ si gnature. Elias did not seek any in dependen t advic e regar di ng th e executi on of the f orm. McDonnel

l a rgues that “[m]utual

respect, confidence an

d trust between paren

t and chi ld,
an d c ar e f or a n ag i n g p ar en t b y a ch i l d, a reto b e f ost er ed an d adm i re d, n ot l ooke d u

pon wi th
su sp i ci on. ” H owe ve

r, p roof of the ex i stenc e of an af f ec ti ona te re l ati ons hi p b etw een th

e te sta tor and a pre f erred bene f i ci ary i s n ot suf f i ci en t to rebut a pre sum

pti on of und ue i nf l uen ce. In re Estate of Mooney , 117 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 99 3, 998, 4 53 N.E.2 d 1158 , 1161- 62 (19 83). McDonnel

l’ s onl y e vi dence of fered at trial

to rebut the presumption that she used un due i nf l uen ce is the al l eged argum en t betwe en El i as a nd W hi taker. How ev er, as

the tri al court cogently observed: “In m y e xperience an

d observati on, it i s not palpab le [ sic ] th at [E l i as ] b as ed

upon one incident or alte rc at ion, which wa s no t re po rt ed o r memo rialized, wo uld alt er her and he r h usba nd 's l ong sta nd i ng es tatepl an ni ng gi vi ng al l he r prope rty to one da ugh ter b ut not ch ange h er wi l l .” The trial court ’s determi

nation tha t McDonnel

l f aile d to rebut the presumption of undue i nf lue nce is not again st the man

if est weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. See In re Estate of Mooney , 117 Ill . App. 3d at 998 , 4 53 N .E .2 d at 116 1 ( in the a bsenc e o f evidence t hat t est at or re ceived any indepe ndent1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

30 advice in the p re par at ion o f disput ed w ill or t hat he und er st oo d t he co nt ent s o f the will, or t hat t he wi tne ss eswi

tne ss ed the wi l l at the re que st of

the tes tator, pre su

m ption of un due i nf l ue nc e w asnot reb utted). Theref

ore, we aff

irm the trial court ’s order of August 11, 2009, ordering that McD onne ll ret ur n t o t he es t at e t he su m of $4 71, 750 and t he pe rso nal pr op er t y belonging t o t he estate. I I . Or de rAw ar din g A t t o rne y Fe es Ass es se d A ga inst t he E st at e a nd No t Ag ain st Mc Do nne ll Both parties appeal

the order awarding attorney f ees and orderi

ng that the fee s be pai

d out of the estate. McDonnel

l reques ts that we aff

irm the order. Whi

taker seeks reversal

of the order
an d a rgue s th at th e tr i al cou rt s h oul d h av e a ss es se d al l

f ee s a n d c ost s a gai n st M cD on

n el l du e to her m i scon duct. Ini tial ly , we cla rif y our standard of rev

ie w. Whi taker argues that we should em ploy a de
novo standard of revi

ew, citi ng Grate v. Grzetich , 373 Ill . App. 3d 228, 231, 867 N.E. 2d 577, 579 (2 007), f

or the propos i

tion that a q ues tion wh ethe r a court has the auth

ority to award atto rney fees is a question of

la w and m ust be revi

ewed de novo . H ow ever , t her e is no t hing b ef oreusth at i

n di ca tes th e tr i al cou rt e n tered i ts o rd er on th e b as i s th

at i t l ac ke d a uth ori ty to as se ss f ee s a gai ns t Mc Don ne l l . W hi tak er d i d n ot prov i de usthe tran scri pt of the he ari ng on W hi tak er’ s s upp l em en tal pe ti ti on f or attor ne y f ee s, a nd the re i s n othi ng ci ted i n th e re cord f rom whi ch we can concl ude that the tr ia

l c ourt determi

ned that i t lacked authority

to assess atto rney fees a gainst McD onne ll. The c ou rt ’s o rd er of N ove mber 1 9, 200 9, awa rd ing at t or ney fees t o be pai d by the estate does not state any un derly in g reasoni ng. In the ab sence of

a suf fi ci ent record,
we mus t re so lve any do ubt s ar ising fro m the inco mplet enes s o f the re co rd aga inst t he ap pellant1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

31 and pres um e the tria l court’s order wa s i

n c onf orma nc e wi th the l aw. Foutch v. O’Bryant , 99 I ll. 2d 38 9, 3 92 , 45 9 N .E. 2d

95 8, 9 59 (1 98 4) . Th

us , w e m us t as su me th e tr i al cou rt w as aw ar e of i ts au th ori ty to as se ss attor n ey ’s f ee s a gai n st M cD on

n el l . W h en a c our t wi th pr ope r a uth ori ty to award atto rney

fees exerci ses i

ts authority, appel

la te court s revi

ew the deci si on to award atto rney f ees und er an abuse of d i scre tion stan dard. Grate , 373 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 231, 867N.E.2d a

t 579. The Probate Act entitl es estate representatives to reasonabl

e fee s f or t hei r services, subj ect to the ci rcuit court’s discretion based upon s uch f actors as the size of

the estate, t he work done, t he sk ill evidenc ed by t he wo rk , t he t ime expend ed, t he su cce ss o f the effor t s involved , g oo d fait h, and the ef fi ci ency with wh ic h the estate was adm

in is tered. 755 ILCS 5/27-1 (West 200 8); In re Estate of Dyniewicz, 271 Ill . App. 3d 616, 624, 648 N.E. 2d 1076, 1082-83 (1995) (citing In re Estate of Devoy , 2 31 I ll. App. 3d 8 83, 888 , 5 96 N .E .2 d 13 39, 134 3 ( 199 2) ). Co unse l fees will be rej ected w

hen the legal

serv i ces rendered are n ot in the i ntere st of or d

o not bene f

i t the estate. In re Estate of Dyniewicz , 271 Ill . App. 3d at 624, 648 N.E .2d at 1082-83 ( ci ting In re Estate of Minsky , 59 Ill. App. 3d 9 74, 979 , 37 6 N. E. 2d 6 47, 651 (19 78) ); In re Esta te of Breault, 63 I ll. App. 2d 246, 254, 211 N.E.2d 424, 429 (1965)
. “T he de cis io n t o gr an t at t o rne y fee s u nd er t his provisi on rests withi

n the ci rcuit court’s sound dis cretion.” Dyniew icz , 271 Ill . App. 3d at 624-25 , 64 8 N .E. 2d

at 1083 (citi

ng In re Esta te of Knott , 245 Ill . App. 3d 736, 739, 615 N.E. 2d 357, 35 9 (199 3))
. Her e, t he t rial co ur t did no t abus e its discr et ion in awa rd ing Whitak er ’s at t or ney fees a nd
costs a s ex ecutor . Th

e tr i al cou rt’ s a ss es sm

en t of W h i tak er ’s attor n ey f ee s a gai n st th e e sta te refl ects the court ’s determi

nation tha t she was properly

defen din g Eli as’s wi ll . See In re Estate of1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

32 Settle , 97 Ill . A

pp. 3d 5 52, 555 , 42 2 N .E.2 d 10 08, 101 0 (1 981 ) (th e tri al cou rt’ s a ss es sm

en t of at t or ney fees a gainst an es t at e r eflect ed a det er minatio n t hat t he exe cut or was pr op er ly f ulfil ling her statuto ry duty

to defen d the wi ll ). We f in d no abuse of

dis cretion i

n thi s determi

nation tha t W h i tak er wa s prop erl

y ac ti n g a s ex ecutor

i n de f en di n g El i as ’s wi l l an d th at sh e w as

en ti tl ed to at t o rne y fee s. We t he r efo r e a ffir m t he o r de rinso far as it gr an t ed t he pe t it io n fo r$2 01 , 22 7. 50 in attorney f ees and $33,1 35.85 i

n c osts throug

h N ovem ber 16, 20 09. Ho weve r, t he qu est ion is whe t her all of t he fees and c os t s sho uld be a sses sed aga inst t he estat e, or agains

t McDo nnel

l. Wh itaker seeks the assessment of all f ees and costs against McDonnel

l due to her m is conduct. McDonnel

l res ponds that fees c ann

ot be ass essed agai

nst her due t o t he “America n ru le.” Illinois no rmally f ollo ws t he “America n ru le,” which st ands for t he propo si tion that each

party i s res pons i bl e f or hi s or h er own

attorney f ees . In re Marriage of Pal , 397 Ill . App. 3d 903 , 910, 924 N.E. 2d 30, 36 (2010). Generall y, un der the “A

me rican rule,” a successf ul l itigant ma y n ot recover att orney f

ees i n the ab sence of

a statut e or a contr actual agree men t betwe en the p arti es p erm

i ttin g recov ery of a ttorney f ees . Goldstein v. DABS Asset Manager, Inc. , 381 Ill . App. 3d 298 , 3 02, 886 N. E. 2d 1 117 , 1 121 (2 008 ). Thu s, o rd inarily, the l osi ng p arty i n a l awsui t can not be requi red to pay

attorney f ees to the wi nn i ng p arty . Bjork v. Draper , 381 Ill . App. 3d 528 , 543, 88 6 N.E.2d 563, 57 6 (200 8). How ever, t he circuit co urt has broad discret ionary power s in awarding an executo r’s attorney f ees . In re Estate of Laas , 171 Il l . Ap p. 3d 91 6, 920, 5 25 N.E.2 d 1089 , 1092 ( 1988)
. Also, sec t ion 1 6- 1( d) of t he Pr oba t e Act re gar ding cit at ions t o d isco ver asse t s pr ovid es t hat t he
cour t “may

enter such or ders and judgm ent as the case requ ires.” 755 ILCS 5/16 -1(d) (West1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

33 200 8) . Fu rt her mor e, a t rial co ur t is endo wed wit h bro ad d iscre t ion t o fa shion r emedies and g ra nt such re l i ef

as e qui ty m ay requi re to rem edy a wron g. Tully v. Edgar , 286 Ill . App. 3d 838 , 847, 676 N .E.2d 136 1, 1367(1997 ). W e n ote that al thou gh the Prob ateA ct c om

pe l s p ay men t f or th e re as ona

bl e s erv i ce s of att or neys f

or execut or s, t here is no pro visi on in the Pro bate Act requ irin g t hat t he execut or ’s attor ney ’s f

ees an d costs be paid exc l usi vel y from the estate. The

Probate Act mere l

y provides: “The a tt orney f or a representative i s enti

tled to reasonable compensation f or his s ervices.” 755 ILCS 5/27- 2 (West 2008 ). “Executo rs and att orneys representing executors shall be al lowed
reas onab l e com

pen sati on f or thei r serv i ces ” (em phasi s ad ded) ( In re Estate of Minsky , 59 Ill . App. 3d 97 4, 9 78 , 37 6 N .E. 2d

64 7, 6 50 (1 97 8) ), b

ut “ th e c our t may aut horize re asonable att or ney’s f ees to be pa i d f rom th e as sets of

the e state” (e

m phasi s ad ded) ( In re Estate of Minsky , 59 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 979, 376N.E.2d a

t 651). W hi tak er c i testo Cather

w ood v. Morr

is , 345 Il l . 617, 63 3-34, 1 78 N.E. 4 87, 493 (1931 ), and Father &

Sons, Inc. v. Taylor , 30 1 Il l . A pp. 3d 4 48, 455 -56 , 70 3 N .E.2 d 53 2, 5 37 ( 199 8), f or t he pr op os itio n t hat wher e t her e wa s a br eac h of fiduc iary du t y, t he “fiduciar y must p ay the at t o rne y’s fee s o ut o f he ro wn as se t s, r at he rt ha n u t ilize an y sha r e o f t he E st at e’ s a ss et s fo rt his pur pos e.” W hi tak er a l so c i testo Grate , 3 73 I ll. App. 3d a t 230 -3 1, 867 N. E. 2d a t 579 , w her e t he court hel d that a tr ustee who breached hi s f iduc ia ry duty by convertin

g trust assets was precl

uded f rom u si ng th e trust as sets to pa

y f or hi s attorne

y f ees . Howev

er, Catherw

ood did not address atto rney fees at all , and Taylor

add re ssed at t or ney fees u nder t he I lli nois C ons umer Fra ud a nd De ce pti v e B us i n es s P ra cti

ce s A ct (A ct) (815 ILCS 505/10(a) (West 1996) ) , wh ich st at ut o r ily1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

34 ent itles a pr evailing par t y to at t or ney’s fees fro m the o t her par t y, a c laim wholly distinct fro m the pres en t case . Grate

h el d th at a tru ste e c oul

d n ot h av e h i s a ttorn ey f ee s p ai d f rom th e tr us t estate where the trustee breached h is fi duci ary duty

by convertin

g trust assets f

or personal use an

d thus di d not i ncur the attorney f ees whi l e protecti

ng th e trust’ s as sets. Grate , 373 Ill . App. 3d at 231, 867 N .E.2d at 57 9. Here, we are present ed with a t rust ee who w as act ing to p ro tec t t he estat e’s
ass ets. Th

us, n one of Wh i taker’ s ci ted cas es a

re on p oin

t. Howev er, t he r e is lo ng - st an din g p r ec ed en t in I llino is fo rap plying t he do ct r ine o f eq uit ab le contri buti on to apportion the

pay men t of attorne

y f ees i n pr obate c ase s wh

ere a ppropri ate. In Jackma n v. Nort

h , 398 I ll . 90, 7 5 N.E. 2d 324 (1 947), where guardians ad litem were appoin ted for minors who wer e pa rt ies in a will cont est , a n or der asse ssing o ne- half of t he fees of t he guardians ad litem aga inst a n unsu cce ssful co nt est ant and t he r emaining one -ha lf against t he testatri x’ estate was h

eld not to be a

n a bus e of di scre tion
. Simil

ar t o t his case , in Jackman t he suit was bro ught t o ha ve t he will held invalid due t o lac k o f menta l capa city, altho ugh in Jackman the evi den ce was held to be i

ns uf f i ci en t to presen

t a ques tion f or a j ury . The plai

ntif f h ad m oved t ha t all fe es an d c o st s be t ax ed ag ain st t he es t at e o r , in t he alt er na t ive , ap po r t io ne d e qu it ab ly
am ong the res

pecti ve parti es. Jackman , 398 Il l . at 108, 7 5 N.E.2d

at 333. In

i tia l l y , the c ourt assess ed all f

ees and c osts again st the plai ntif f, b ut upo n pl

ai ntif f’ s m ot ion, the court reconsidered t he gu ar dian ad litem fee s a nd o rd er ed t hat o ne h alf o f t he fe es be a ss es se d a ga inst t he p laint iff
and the other h al f agai nst the estate. Jackman , 398 Il l . at 107-0 8, 75 N .E.2d at 33 3. The court not ed t hat t he pr ior Chanc er y Act p ro vided t hat “one app oint ed a s a g uar dian ad litem shall be al lowed a reasona

ble sum for hi s charges , to be f

ix ed by the court and taxed i

n the b il l of costs.”1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

35 Jackman , 398 Il

l . at 108, 7 5 N.E.2d

at 333. Our current Pro bate Act si mi la rly provides that “[t]he atto rney

for a representativ

e i s enti tled to reasonable compensation f or his s ervices.” 755 ILCS 5/27-2(We st 2008 ). In In re Esta te of Breault, 63 I ll . App. 2d 246 , 211 N.E .2d 4 24 (1 965) , t he execut or ’s at t o rne y wa s e nt it led t o at t o rne y fee s fr o m no np r o ba t e a ss et s u nd er t he do ct r ine o f eq uit ab le
co nt ribut ion. In t he pa st , t he pr oba t e co ur t ’s limi t ed jur isdict ion p re vent ed it fro m reac hing
non- pr oba t e as set s. H ow ever , t hat chang ed u nder t he o ver hauled jurisd ictio n pr ovisio ns o f the Ill in ois Constitution. As the Breault court explai

ned: “There i s a growin

g body of la w that the doct rin

e of equi table contributi on extends to att orneys’ f

ees for services rendered to an execut or with respect to nonprobat e assets. *** * * * He retof ore, the pri mary obs tac l e to a ppl y i ng the doc tri ne of eq ui tab l e c ontr

i bu ti on wa s th e f ac t tha t the Prob ateCou

rt l ac ke d the p owe r to as se ss f ee s a gai ns t prop erty not wit hin the c ou rt ’s jur isdict ion. *** But as o f Janua ry 1, 196 4, Illinois has r eplac ed t he limit ed jur isd ict io n o f t he Pr o ba t e C o ur t wit h t he un ified ge ne r al ju r isd ict io n o f t he Cir cu it Co ur t pur sua nt t o s ec[ t ion] 9 o f the New Jud icial Art icle VI o f the Illinois Co nst itu t ion, grantin g to the ci rcuit court ‘unli

mi ted or igi nal jurisdi ction of al

l j ustici abl e m atter .’ ” In re Estat e of Breault, 63 Il

l . Ap p. 2d a t 268-70, 2 11 N.E.2 d at 436 -37. The court co ncl

uded:

“ W e f i nd no jurisd i cti ona l l i m i tations upon the tri al cou rt as the Prob ateDi

vi si on1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

36 of t he Circ uit Co ur t which pr event ed it fro m reac hing t he no npr oba t e as set s, a nd no jus tif ia ble reason why

petitioner s

hould n ot be com pensated. *** Fu rther more , w e f

i n d sub sta n ce i n pe ti ti on er ’s addi ti on al con ten ti on th at th e d uty t o c omp ensa t e fo r su ch se rvices ou t of t he no npr oba t e as set s may oft en be quas i -contractual

and bi ndi ng on those b enef

i tted. Such

quas i -contractual

obl i gati ons a re often f ounded upon a statut ory, off ic ia l, or customary

duty, and arise when

the court seeks t o u pho ld t he fund ament al pr inciple tha t no o ne o ught t o e nrich himself unjust ly at t he expense of an

ot her. [Ci

tations.]” In re Esta te of Breault, 63 Ill . App. 2d at 272-73, 211 N.E.2d a t 438. T he r e is als o r ec en t pr ec ed en t aw ar din g fe es an d c o st s a s p un it ive da mag es in circumstances wher e ther e is a breach of fiduciary dut ies and disregard o f another benefi ciary’s
r igh t s u nd er a w ill . I n In re Esta te of Talty , 376 Ill . App. 3d 1082, 877 N.E.2d 1195 ( 2007), we aff irm ed a trial court ’s ass essm

ent of atto rney

fees and costs as puni

tive da ma ges agai nst an exec ut or who bre ache d his fiduciar y dut y and disr ega rd ed t he wido w bene ficiary’s right s. T he dec ede nt ’s will gave t he exe cut or , w ho w as t he de ced ent ’s br ot her , t he r ight t o p ur chas e t he dece den t’s sha res of stock an d property

i ntere sts, wh

i ch he di d. In re Esta te of Talty , 37 6 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 1086, 87 7 N.E.2d

at 1201 . Bas ed on

a com pl ai nt f i l ed b y the wi dow, the

tria l court fou nd t hat t he br ot her ’s ac t ions a s exe cut or wer e in bad fait h and a n abus e o f discr et ion, and t he sal es w ere v aca ted. In re Esta te of Talty , 376 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 1086-87 , 877 N .E.2d at 12 02. Af ter new apprai sal s were done, the brother was ordered to pay addi tional sums and was

ordered t o pay f or the wi dow’s attorney ’sf

ees and costs. In re Esta te of Talty , 376 Ill . App. 3d at 1087, 8771-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

37 N.E.2d a t 1202. The Talty

co ur t inter pr et ed t he aw ar d o f at t or ney fees a nd co st s as p unit ive da mag es an d n o t ed t ha t pu nit ive da mag es ar e “ aw ar de d o nly wh en a r es po nd en t ’s co nd uc t is wil lf ul or outrageo us due to evil motiv e or a reckless

in dif feren ce to t he ri

ghts of others.” In re Estate of Talty , 376 Ill . App. 3d at 1093, 877 N.E .2d at 1207. T he court went on to note that “[a]tto rney

fees and costs are an el

em ent of puni

tive da ma ges.” In re Esta te of Talty , 37 6 I ll. App. 3d a t 109 4, 877 N. E. 2d a t 120 7. The co ur t affirmed t he at t or ney fees a war d, co ncluding that “[s]uch an

award was cl

early necess ary to puni sh W

il li am for di sregardin

g the righ ts of Hel en as ben efi ci ary un der [the decedent’s] wi

ll .” In re Esta te of Talty , 376 Ill . App. 3d at 1094, 877 N.E.2d a t 1207. T hu s, ba se d o n o ur r ev iew o f bo t h lo ng - st an din g p r ec ed en t r eg ar din g e qu it ab le
co nt ribut ion and re cent pr ece dent awa rd ing at t or ney fees a nd co st s as p unit ive damag es, t he ci rcui t court in i ts di scre tion can ass ess attorney f ees agai nst parti es othe

r than the e state. Atto rney fees for an ex ecutor can be asses sed agai nst a party i

n a probate proceedin

g based ei ther on equi table contributi on, or as puniti ve dam ages whe re there was will

ful or o utrageous co nduct due to ev i l motive or a rec

kl ess i ndi f f eren ce to the ri

ghts of othe rs. Ba se d on the f ac t tha t the tri al cou rt f oun d the enti rety of Mc Don ne l l ’s tes ti mony not cr edible, and t hat McD onne ll breache d her fiduciar y dut y and fra udu lently t ra nsferr ed a ll sums and pe r so na l pr o pe r t y in q ue st io n, an aw ar d o f at t o rne y fee s s o lely fr o m t he es t at e’ s fu nd s is i nc ons i stent w

i th th es e f i nd i ng s a nd i s a n a bu se of di screti on. Th ere f

ore, werev

ers e that p orti on of t he fee o rd er asse ssing t he fees and c os t s so lely against t he es t at e, and r emand t he mat t er t o t he ci rcuit court for a pro per determi nation of the am ount o f attorney f

ees and c osts Whi

taker1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

38 incur re d t o r eco ver t he es t at e pr op er t y and fund s fro m McDo nnell, and or der t hat t his amou nt be
as se ss ed ag ai n st M cD on

n el l . Th e r em ai n i n g a moun t of f ee s a n d c ost s i n cu rre d f or e sta te adm i nistrati on n

ot rel ated to McD onnel

l ’swrong f

ul cond uct i s to be asse sse d aga

i nst the estate. CONCLUSION Because we f

in d the ci rcuit court’s fi

ndi ng of l ack of m ental capaci ty an d use of un

due infl uenc e wa s no t aga inst t he manifest weight of t he evide nce, we a ffi rm t he judg ment o f the ci rcui t court of A

ugust 11, 1009 , ordering McD onnel l to return $471,750 in cas h an d personal property to Eli as’ estate. How ev er , b as ed on th e c our t’s f i n di n gs , a ss es si

n g W h i tak er ’s attor n ey f ee s a n d c ost s wholl y a gai nst the estate, and not also agai nst McDonn

el l, was an ab use of di scretion. Theref

ore, we af fi rm the f ee order ins ofar as i

t awards the stated amount in atto rney fees and costs, but reverse the portion of the order assess in g al l f ees and c osts again st the estate o nl y a nd rem an d f or a d et er minat io n o f t he amo un t o f at t o rne y and co st s inc ur r ed t o r ec o ve rt he wr o ng fully t ra nsferr ed fu nds a nd pr op er t y from Mc Do nnell, and or der t hat t his amou nt of fee s and co st s be
asse ssed aga inst M cDo nnell. We fur t her instr uct t hat t he r emaining amou nt of a t t or ney fees a nd
co st s incur re d fo r e st at e ad mini st ra t ion no t re late d t o M cDo nnell’s wr ong ful co nduc t is to be
assess ed agai

nst the estate. Af f i rmed i n pa rt; an d rev erse d i n pa rt; ca use rem anded wi th i nstructi ons.1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

39 REPORTER OF DECISIONS - ILLINOIS APPELLATE CO URT In Re ESTAT E OF MA RGERY M. ELIAS, Deceased Ma rg ar et K. H. Whita ke r, as

In de pe nd en t E xec ut or of the Estate of M argery M. El ias, Deceased, Petitioner

-Appe llee and Cros s-Ap pellant, v. Elea no r A.H . McD on ne ll, Respondent-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 1-09-3328 ; 1-09-345 1 (Cons.) Appellate Court of Illinois Firs t Dis tric

t, FOUR TH DIVISI ON March 24, 2011 Justice Pucinski de livere d the opinion of the court with opinion. Pre siding J ustic e Gall agher and Jus tice

Lavin concurred i n the jud gment and opinio n. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. The Hon. Jam es W. Kennedy, Judge Presiding. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT AND CROSS-A PPELLEE: HARRISON &

HELD, L .L.C., of Chica go, IL (Georg e N. Vur

delja, Jr.)
CO UN SE L F OR

A PP EL LE E A NDCROS S- A PP EL LA NT: ESP, KREUZER , CORES & McL AUGHLIN, L LP, of Wheaton, IL (Kenneth S. McLaug hlin, Jr.)1-09-3328 and 1-09-3451 (consoli dated)

40