2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

No. 2-23-0138 

Order filed December 26, 2023

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent 

except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

In re ESTATE OF WALTER BROOKER, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court

a Disabled Person ) of Kane County. 

) 

) No. 21-P-168 

) 

(Karen Brooker, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ) Honorable 

Yelena Brooker, Respondent-Appellant, Law ) Joseph A. Grady, 

Office of Bridget G. Wrobel, LLC, Appellee). ) Judge, Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Hutchinson and Kennedy concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving an amended budget for the 

estate, approving the Guardian’s final accounting, or entering judgment for 

spouse’s former attorney on fee petition and requiring spouse to pay half of current 

attorney’s fees. Spouse forfeited other arguments. 

¶ 2 Walter Brooker became disabled following a stroke in February 2021. Two daughters from 

his first marriage were appointed as guardians of his estate and his person. In subsequent 

disagreements between those guardians and Walter’s second wife, Yelena, over Walter’s care and 

expenditures from his estate, the trial court entered orders largely siding with the guardians. The 

trial court also entered orders requiring Yelena to pay most of the fees for her attorneys. Yelena 

appeals from several of these orders. We affirm.
2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

- 2 - 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A. Walter’s Care

¶ 5 Walter suffered a stroke in February 2021 that left him totally disabled and unable to 

understand language, communicate, or care for himself. On March 24, 2021, the trial court 

appointed Karen Brooker as the temporary guardian of his estate and Julie Berry as the temporary 

guardian of his person. On April 1, 2021, he was discharged from the hospital and returned to the 

home he shared with his wife of almost 20 years, Yelena. Yelena was nearly 80 years’ old. 

Walter’s son, Timothy Brooker, initially moved into their home to serve as Walter’s primary 

caregiver. On April 27, 2021, Walter’s daughters Karen and Julie were appointed plenary 

guardians of Walter’s estate and his person, respectively.

¶ 6 In May 2021, Timothy was hospitalized and could no longer provide care for Walter. A 

home health care agency was hired to provide full-time in-home care for Walter, beginning June 

8, 2021. There was friction between the caregiver assigned to care for Walter and Yelena, who 

had criticisms of the care being provided.

¶ 7 Karen filed a petition seeking leave to purchase a prepaid funeral plan and set the hearing 

for July 27, 2021. No transcript or bystander’s report of this proceeding appears in the record. In 

her appellate brief, Yelena states that her first language is not English and that she requested an 

interpreter for the hearing. However, when she appeared in court, no interpreter was present. 

Yelena had no attorney at that point. She opposed the petition on the grounds that Walter’s funeral 

wishes were known, that the plan identified provided services beyond what he had requested, and 

that there were less expensive options. The trial court granted the petition over Yelena’s objection. 

Karen then made an oral motion to remove Walter from his home and move him to an apartment, 

asserting that Yelena’s criticisms of the caregiver had resulted in the caregiver complaining and 
2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

- 3 - 

threatening to quit. Again over Yelena’s objection, and without providing Yelena with time to file 

a response, the trial court granted this oral motion. The order further provided that Yelena’s visits 

with Walter could be limited “at the discretion of the guardian of the person.”

¶ 8 Yelena hired an attorney, the Law Office of Bridget G. Wrobel. Wrobel filed a timely 

motion to reconsider the trial court’s order of July 27, 2021, arguing that Yelena had not received 

due process. The motion was heard on September 21, 2021, and the trial court denied the motion. 

No transcript or bystander’s report of this hearing appears in the record.

¶ 9 Walter was moved to an independent living apartment at Ascension Living Fox Knoll 

Village in July 2021. His caregiver quit three months later in October 2021. Walter remained in 

the apartment under the care of a succession of other caregivers for another five months. In March 

2022, Walter was moved into the home of his daughter, Julie, who was a registered nurse. Walter 

died on June 9, 2022.

¶ 10 B. Assets of the Estate

¶ 11 Shortly after his stroke, Walter had a little more than $116,000 in three Old Second Bank 

accounts: (1) account 6018, a checking account with a balance of over $63,000, which designated 

Yelena as the beneficiary to whom the account should be paid upon his death; (2) account 4246, 

with a balance of a little over $8,000 and no designated beneficiary (the parties suggest that this 

account was intended by Walter to cover his funeral expenses, and it appears to have been used 

for that purpose); and (3) account 8848, with a balance of over $45,000, for which the designated 

beneficiaries were Walter’s four children (including Karen and Julie). The estate also opened a 

new account (9013) to serve as the depository for Walter’s retirement and other benefits, and to 

pay estate expenses. To pay for the costs of Walter’s care, Karen drew first on account 6018 and 

then, when that was depleted, on accounts 9013 and 8848.
2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

- 4 - 

¶ 12 Walter’s monthly expenses included both the rent for the apartment and the cost of fulltime care. His estate also initially paid the costs of maintaining the marital home and car, as Yelena 

had little income (about $600 per month in benefits) and Walter had always paid these costs. 

Walter’s monthly income was about $4,500, requiring the estate to draw on his assets to pay for 

his care.

¶ 13 On January 4, 2022, Karen filed a petition to establish a monthly budget including $2100 

for rent and $12,500 for Walter’s home care services. The petition alleged that Yelena had 

substantial assets of her own and argued that Walter’s estate should not be required to contribute 

to the upkeep of the marital home and car, as he was no longer using either. The petition was 

presented to the court just three days later, on January 7, 2022. Karen’s attorney represented to 

the court that there was no objection to Karen’s petition. The order entered that day set a budget 

that permitted Walter’s estate to stop contributing to the cost of the marital home and car.

¶ 14 Attorney Wrobel filed an emergency motion to amend the January 7, 2022, order, to delete 

the portion allowing the estate to discontinue payments for the marital home and car. Wrobel 

argued that there had been a sudden death in her family and she did not have a chance to closely 

read the petition before being contacted by Karen’s attorney, who did not mention that Karen was 

seeking to discontinue payments to maintain the marital home and car. Further, the portion of the 

estate’s petition that listed the relief sought did not include any request to discontinue these 

payments. Wrobel asserted that she would have appeared in court and objected to this portion of 

the budget petition had she known of this request. Karen’s attorney did not send her a copy of the 

proposed order for that date until after it was entered. On January 13, 2022, the trial court denied 

the motion to amend the order. No transcript or bystander’s report of the proceedings on January 

7 and January 13 appears in the record.
2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

- 5 - 

¶ 15 Wrobel advised the court that, to minimize the cost of Walter’s care, she and Yelena 

frequently asked the guardians to either return Walter to his home or place him in a nursing home 

for which Medicare coverage could be pursued. These requests were unsuccessful.

¶ 16 After Walter was moved into Julie’s home in March 2022, Karen asked the court to enter 

an amended budget for Walter that included $2000 per month as rent for Walter’s stay in Julie’s 

home, and $5,000 per month for caregivers. As before, the amended budget did not include any 

contribution to Yelena’s living expenses. Yelena filed a motion to enforce spousal rights, which 

among other things sought to require the guardians to place Walter in a long-term care facility and 

apply for Medicaid to preserve the estate’s assets. Yelena argued that the guardians had a statutory 

duty to provide not only for Walter but also for his dependents, which included Yelena, and that 

the cessation of the payments to maintain the marital home and car were impoverishing her. The 

guardians responded by subpoenaing Yelena’s bank accounts, which showed that near the time of 

Walter’s stroke she had about $90,000 in a separate account, and that the current balance of that 

account was about $42,000. The trial court approved the amended budget on April 29, 2022.

¶ 17 As of June 9, 2022, when Karen filed the amended final accounting for the estate, almost 

the entire checking account (6018) had been emptied, leaving only $477.11 payable to Yelena on 

Walter’s death. Account 9013, the account opened and operated by the guardians, held $9687.21. 

Account 4246, the funeral expenses account, held $1503.62. Account 8848, which was to be 

divided among Walter’s children upon his death, held $18,212.59. The total of all of these 

accounts was $29,880.53. (None of these accounts were Yelena’s separate account.) Other joint 

assets of Walter and Yelena included a joint checking account with about $2600 in it; an 18-yearold Toyota Corolla, and the couple’s home, valued by the Kane County Assessor at $177,471.

¶ 18 C. Attorney Fees
2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

- 6 - 

¶ 19 As noted above, Yelena hired the Law Office of Bridget G. Wrobel in August 2021. In 

January 2022, Wrobel filed a petition seeking interim fees in the amount of $7908.75. Wrobel 

stated that her representation of Yelena had benefited the ward, i.e., Walter, and asked that her fees 

be paid out of his estate. On February 1, 2022, the trial court heard the petition. It found that 

Wrobel’s fees were reasonable and necessary but that Wrobel’s representation did not benefit the 

estate. Accordingly, the trial court granted the petition but required Wrobel to seek payment from 

Yelena herself. Yelena retained different counsel, the Kabbe Law Group. On March 4, 2022, an 

attorney at that firm substituted her appearance for that of Wrobel.

¶ 20 Yelena did not immediately pay the fees, and Wrobel asked the court to enter a judgment 

against Yelena in the amount of $7908.75. On January 18, 2023, the trial court granted this request. 

Yelena filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that Wrobel had told her that her fees would be paid 

out of the estate, and that Wrobel did not file (and Yelena’s new attorneys did not have the 

opportunity to file) a motion to reconsider the February 1, 2022, order finding Wrobel’s fees to be 

reasonable and necessary but not made for the benefit of the estate. Wrobel contested this, pointing 

out that Yelena signed an engagement letter stating that she understood that she was responsible 

for Wrobel’s fees if the estate did not pay them. Further, Yelena’s new attorney contacted Karen’s 

attorney during the first half of February 2022, and thus her new attorney could have filed her 

substituted appearance earlier than March 4, 2022, enabling her to file a timely motion to 

reconsider. On February 27, 2023, the trial court denied Yelena’s motion to reconsider the January 

2023 entry of judgment against her.

¶ 21 Yelena’s new attorney then filed her own fee petition, arguing that her work benefited the 

estate and thus her fees should be paid by the estate. On March 28, 2023, the trial court granted 
2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

- 7 - 

the petition in part, finding that the fees were reasonable and necessary, and that one-half of them 

should be paid by the estate.

¶ 22 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 23 Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we pause to note that Karen filed a motion to 

dismiss it. Karen asserts that Yelena mischaracterized various things in her statement of the facts. 

Karen also disputes Yelena’s opinion about whether Walter’s children received a “windfall” in 

that the account payable to them upon Walter’s death had over $18,000 in it, whereas the account 

payable to Yelena had only $477.11 in it. None of these flaws merit the dismissal of the appeal or 

sanctions on the ground of frivolousness, in our view. We therefore proceed to the merits.

¶ 24 Yelena’s notice of appeal lists seven orders she wishes to challenge: those entered on July 

27, 2021, February 1, 2022, April 29, 2022, January 17, 2023, January 18, 2023, February 27, 

2023, and March 28, 2023. We first address the orders and arguments that do not relate to attorney 

fees, and then consider those that do. 

¶ 25 A. Orders and Issues Unrelated to Attorney Fees

¶ 26 Yelena first complains that the trial court’s order of July 27, 2021, granting the guardians’ 

requests to move Walter out of the marital home and to purchase a prepaid funeral plan, was an 

abuse of discretion. To the extent that Yelena is asserting that the trial court should not have 

reached the conclusion it did, we must reject her argument because the record does not include any 

transcript or bystander’s report of the proceedings on this date.

“The burden rests on the appellant to provide a sufficient record to support a claim of error, 

and in the absence of such a record, the reviewing court will presume that the trial court’s 

order was in conformity with established legal principles and had a sufficient factual basis. 

Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984). ‘[I]n the absence of a proper record a 
2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

- 8 - 

reviewing court may dismiss an appeal or, in the alternative, summarily affirm the 

judgment of the trial court.’ ” Marx Transport, Inc. v. Air Express International Corp., 

379 Ill. App. 3d 849, 853 (2008) (quoting Landau & Associates, P.C. v. Kennedy, 262 Ill. 

App. 3d 89, 92 (1994)).

Because, in the absence of a transcript, we must presume that the trial court’s order conformed to 

established legal principles and was adequately supported by the facts, we find no abuse of 

discretion in the trial court’s actions on July 21, 2021.

¶ 27 Further, to the extent that Yelena argues that the trial court committed legal error because 

it did not hold an evidentiary hearing before making its decision, Yelena has forfeited the argument 

by failing to provide any legal authority to support it. Where a party does not offer any argument 

or meaningful authority in support of that argument, the argument is forfeited. Ill. S. Ct. R. 

341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020); People ex rel. Illinois Department of Labor v. E.R.H. Enterprises, 

Inc., 2013 IL 115106, ¶ 56. We also note that Yelena has not adequately supported any argument 

that the trial court erred in denying her motion to reconsider this order, as the record lacks any 

record of the proceedings on September 21, 2021, when that motion was heard.

¶ 28 Yelena next challenges the order entered on April 29, 2022, granting the guardians’ motion 

to amend the budget for the estate’s expenditures following Walter’s move into the home of his 

daughter Julie. As mentioned above, Yelena responded by filing a motion to enforce spousal 

rights, arguing that the guardians owed a statutory duty to preserve the estate’s assets for the benefit 

not only of Walter but also of his dependents such as Yelena. Instead of initially placing Walter 

in a long-term care facility where he could receive reliable ongoing care that was largely paid for 

by Medicaid, the guardians kept him in an apartment and hired in-home caregivers at a monthly 

cost of almost $16,000. Yelena argued that, although the guardians’ current motion included a 
2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

- 9 - 

much lower allocation for caregivers as Julie anticipated providing much of Walter’s care, it was 

still too high and would result in the impoverishment of both the estate and Yelena before long. 

Yelena did not attach any evidence regarding her or Walter’s finances to her motion.

¶ 29 The guardians replied with a lengthy explanation of why institutional care was 

inappropriate for Walter. He had been in institutions briefly several times since his stroke, for 

hospitalizations and acute and subacute rehabilitation. When institutionalized, he was agitated and 

despondent. His inability to communicate and his bodily needs (such as the need to be fed by 

hand), coupled with the competing demands placed on institutional staff, resulted in bedsores and

missed meals. He was tall (six feet five inches) and so he did not fit in institutional beds. Further, 

although his lack of control over bodily movements meant that he needed a full bedrail, those were 

prohibited in institutions, with the result that he had twice been found on the floor beside his bed 

in the morning, having fallen out but unable to summon help. As for conserving assets of the 

estate, the move to Julie’s home would result in several thousand dollars less each month being 

needed for caregiving, as Julie would provide much of that without charge. The guardians had 

also pursued some public benefits and insurance to pay for Walter’s care, but he was ineligible for 

the programs they had explored. Yelena’s reluctance to provide the guardians with information 

about her own assets meant that they were unable to apply for Medicaid. Finally, although they 

did owe Yelena the duty to ensure that she was supported, her bank statements (which they

attached) showed that she had about $42,000 available to her. After hearing oral arguments, the 

trial court granted the guardians’ motion and denied Yelena’s motion. 

¶ 30 On appeal, Yelena argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not placing Walter in 

a long-term care facility in order to preserve his assets and by approving a budget that compensated 

Julie in the amount of $2000 per month for Walter’s room and board while he lived in her home. 
2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

- 10 - 

Yelena has not carried her burden on either of these arguments.1

 A trial court abuses its discretion 

only when its ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or no reasonable person would take the 

view adopted by the trial court, or when its ruling rests on an error of law. People v. Olsen, 2015 

IL App (2d) 140267, ¶ 11. Here, there was ample evidence supporting the trial court’s decision 

not to place Walter in institutional care. And although Yelena complains that Karen did not 

support her request to amend the budget with evidence such as bills, receipts, or caregiver 

agreements, there is no dispute that the quality of Walter’s housing in Julie’s home was equivalent 

to his former apartment, for which the estate was paying more. The estate also advised the court 

that Walter was using the master bedroom while Julie and her husband slept in the basement, 

Julie’s electric and grocery bills were higher because of Walter’s presence in her home, and there 

were laundry costs associated with the daily laundry to keep Walter’s bedding and clothing clean 

and sanitary. Yelena did not present evidence that Walter could have received the same quality of 

care elsewhere for less. For all of these reasons, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s 

approval of the amended budget on April 29, 2022.

¶ 31 The remaining non-attorney-fee-related order listed in the notice of appeal is the order of 

January 17, 2023, in which the trial court approved the estate’s final accounting after Walter’s 

death. So far as we can discern, Yelena’s only assignment of error related to that order is that the 

1

As to the trial court’s decision to permit Walter’s estate to stop paying the costs of the 

marital home and car, that issue is not before us, as the trial court made that decision on January 

7, 2022, and Yelena did not identify that order as one she wished to challenge in this appeal. The 

April 29, 2022, order approving the guardians’ amended budget simply continued the trial court’s 

previous ruling.
2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

- 11 - 

trial court did not order the estate to pay her some of the money remaining in account 8848 (the

account that was payable on death to Walter’s children) in order to equalize the funds left to 

Walter’s survivors. However, Yelena provides no legal authority whatsoever for her assertion that 

the trial court had an obligation to ensure an equal division of assets upon Walter’s death. She has 

thus forfeited her challenge to the January 17, 2023, order. See E.R.H. Enterprises, 2013 IL 

115106, ¶ 56 (“Both argument and citation to relevant authority are required” to avoid forfeiture). 

¶ 32 We are not unsympathetic to Yelena’s situation. Doubtless, she hoped for a better outcome 

here. Unfortunately, as a reviewing court, we owe deference to the trial court, and that fact 

compels the result here. We note that Yelena devotes several pages of her briefs to arguments that 

the guardians breached their fiduciary duty to her. If Yelena believes that she has a valid claim 

for breach of fiduciary duty, she is welcome to bring a suit. The record in this case does not show 

that Yelena ever filed a claim of breach of fiduciary duty against the guardians, however, and thus 

any such claim was not before the trial court. Nor is it before this court. Our decision here rests 

solely on the claims presented thus far.

¶ 33 B. Orders and Issues Related to Attorney Fees

¶ 34 Yelena challenges several of the trial court’s rulings regarding attorney fees. She first 

attacks the February 1, 2022, order finding that Wrobel’s fees were reasonable and necessary but 

that they could not be paid from Walter’s estate. As Yelena correctly notes, section 27-2(a) of the 

Probate Act of 1975 (755 ILCS 5/27-2(a) (West 2020)) permits the payment from the estate of 

“reasonable compensation” to the “attorney for a representative.” Further, the term 

“representative” is quite broad and extends beyond those who are legally appointed to act for an 

estate, to include heirs and next of kin. In re Estate of Roselli, 70 Ill. App. 3d 116, 123 (1979). A 

representative need not be successful in order to have her attorney fees paid by the estate, so long 
2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

- 12 - 

as the representation benefited the estate in some way. In re Estate of Byrd, 227 Ill. App. 3d 632, 

639 (1992).

¶ 35 Here, however, neither Wrobel (in presenting her fee petition before the trial court) nor 

Yelena (before the trial court and on appeal) identified any ways in which Wrobel’s actions as 

Yelena’s attorney benefited Walter’s estate. Wrobel’s bare assertion that her services benefited 

the estate was not sufficient. It is the obligation of one seeking relief from a court to produce 

evidence and arguments supporting her request. Lacking such evidence or even detailed argument, 

the trial court did not err in finding that the estate should not bear the cost of the fees.

¶ 36 On appeal, Yelena argues that, when she hired Wrobel, Wrobel assured her that attorney 

fees were generally payable by the estate, and thus Yelena did not anticipate that she would have 

to bear that cost herself. However, Wrobel told the trial court that the engagement letter Yelena 

signed made it clear that Yelena would be responsible for Wrobel’s fees if they were not paid by 

the estate. Yelena has not disputed this assertion, nor has she shown that her agreement with 

Wrobel was unconscionable or invalid. We have no basis for finding that the trial court’s rulings 

on February 1, 2022, were an abuse of discretion.

¶ 37 Yelena next attacks the orders of January 18, 2023 (reducing Wrobel’s attorney fees to an 

enforceable judgment entered against Yelena) and February 27, 2023 (denying Yelena’s motion 

to reconsider the first order). Yelena argues that these orders were unfair as she did not have an 

opportunity to contest the reasonableness of Wrobel’s fees or raise contract defenses. However, 

Yelena did have such an opportunity. First, she could have filed a motion to reconsider the trial 

court’s February 1, 2022, finding that Wrobel’s fees were reasonable and necessary. Although her 

new counsel did not file an appearance until more than 30 days after the entry of that order, the 

guardians’ attorney advised the trial court that her office had been contacted by Yelena’s new 
2023 IL App (2d) 230138-U 

- 13 - 

attorney within two weeks, indicating that a timely motion to reconsider could have been filed. 

Moreover, Wrobel filed her motion for judgment in September 2022. Yelena had the opportunity 

at that point to raise any arguments she wished to make about the reasonableness of Wrobel’s fees 

and any defenses that she may have had to her contractual obligation to pay those fees, but she did 

not file a response or seek an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in 

entering judgment for Wrobel in the amount of the fees.

¶ 38 The final matter Yelena raises on appeal is the trial court’s March 28, 2023, determination 

that only one-half of the attorney fees arising from Yelena’s second attorney’s representation could 

be paid by the estate (and thus she must pay the other half). Yelena states, and we agree, that this 

amounted to an implicit finding by the trial court that one-half of the efforts made by Yelena’s 

second attorney benefited the estate. But Yelena’s sole challenge to this determination is the bare 

assertion that all of the legal services rendered by her second attorney were in Walter’s best 

interest. That bare statement, devoid of any specifics about how those legal services benefited 

Walter’s estate, is insufficient to show that the trial court abused its discretion. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 

341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (where a party does not offer any argument or meaningful authority 

in support of that argument, the argument is forfeited). Yelena also complains that the trial court 

did not provide its reasoning for this award. While we agree that it is preferable for a trial court to 

explain the basis for its decision, Yelena has not cited any legal authority that such an explanation 

was required here. We thus see no legal basis to overturn the trial court’s ruling regarding Yelena’s 

second attorney’s fees. Id. 

¶ 39 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 40 For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County is affirmed. 

¶ 41 Affirmed.