No. 3–06–0669

______________________________________________________________________________ File d October 29, 2007. IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2007 In re ESTATE OF THOMAS TA LTY, ) Ap

peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court Dec eas ed ( Helen T alty, Pet itio ner -Ap pellee v. ) of th e T we l f

th Judi ci al Ci rc ui t, Wi l l i am Tal ty, R esp ondent-A

ppel l an t). ) Wi

ll County, Illi

nois, ) ) No. 01–P–371 ) ) Ho no r ab le ) Herman

Haase, ) Judge, Presi din

g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE WR

IGHT de l i

vered the opi

ni on of the c ourt

___________________ ______________________________________________________ _ Re sp on den

t, William T alt y, a pp ea ls fr o m mult iple orders and judgm ents entered

by t he cir cu it co ur t o f Will Co un t y wit h r eg ar d t o t he pr o ba t e e st at e o f T ho mas T alt y, d ec ea se d. We affir m. I. BACKG

ROUND Re sp on den

t, W i l l i am

Tal ty , an d h i s b roth er, Th omasTal

ty , operate d a

n i nc or p orat ed automobil e dealershi

p in Morris, Illi

nois , for over 25 ye ars. Thomas a nd W il li am each owned 50% of the corporat e stock. The deal ershi p is located on two parcels of l and: a 2.98-acre parcel owned by Thomas and W il li am , and a 6. 21- acr e pa rc el held in a land t ru st ow ned by T homas and William. The 2.9 8-acr

e parc el contai ns the deal ersh i p bu i l di ngs and pri m ary parki ng l ot, and the 6.21 -acre pa rc el i s v ac an t ex ce pt f or a pp rox i mate l y 18 ,60 0 s qu ar e f

eet us ed f or a de al er sh i p p ar ki n g l ot. In Dece m ber 1 99 9, T ho mas le ar ne d h e w as ill. O n Ju ly 13 , 20 00 , T ho mas ex ec ut ed a w ill-2-

naming his brother, W

i l l i am as exe cutor. The wi l l

made s pe ci f i c b eq ue sts of f ar m l an d to Will iam and a sister, and named Thomas’s wi f e, Hel en , as the sol

e res i duary

bene f i ciary of the es tat e. T homas’s estate in cluded his ownership i

nterest s in

the dealershi

p and the real estat e. Thomas’s wi ll gave Wi ll ia m t he r ight t o p ur chas e all of his sha re s o f sto ck in t he deal ershi p, subj ect t o cert ain

conditions, whi ch included : “T he pur chas e pr ice shall be de t er mined by an indep ende nt app ra iser a ppr ove d by t he Pr oba t e Co ur t having jurisdi ction over m y e state. Said purchase s

hal l b e i n accordance

with s uch addi tion al term s as approv ed b y the c ourt.” The wil l also gave Wil

li am the righ

t t o pur chase Thomas’s i

nterest in the 2.98-acre parcel

and also in the la nd trust holdi

ng title to t he 6.21-acre par cel, pr ovi din g: “The purchase price of these parcel s sha

ll be the f ai r market val

ue as determi

ned b y a n apprais er approved

by the Prob ate Court ha vi ng juri sdi cti on ove r m y estate.” On Jan uary 3, 200 1, Th

omasan d W i l li am en tere d i nto a corp orate

stoc k re de m

ption ag re em en t, w h i ch pr ov i de d, i

n re l ev an t pa rt: 5. PU RCH ASE OF S HARE S U PO N DE ATH OF S HARE HOL DE R. Upo n t he de ath of a shar eho lder (t he de cea sed shar eho lder ), t he Co mpany shall pur chas e, and t he pe r so na l re pr es en t at ive o f t he de ce as ed sha r eh o lde rsha ll se ll, a ll of the sh are s of the deceased shareholder as foll ows: 5.1 The pr ice (t he “pu rc hase pr ice”) for t he shares of a deceased s

harehol der sha ll be com puted by div idi ng the val

ue, determi

ned in ac corda n ce wi th subs ect ions 5. 2 and 5. 3, by all the o ut st an din g sha re s o f the Co mpany and multiplying

t he qu ot ient t her eby obt ained by t he number of sha re s held by t he dec eas ed s har eho lder on t he da t e o f deat h.-3- 5.2 *** [T ]he fair mark et value o f all shares ou t st anding o n t he Co mpany records as of the date of the deceased s harehol de rs’ s de at h shall be determi ned in acco rd ance wit h gene ra lly acc ept ed a cco unt ingpr inc ip les by a certif ie d pu b li c accountant agreed upon by the Compan

y a nd the personal re pr ese nt at iveof t he deceased sh areholde r’s estate. In the even

t t hat they are un ab le to agree

upon a C PA , a d

i si nte res ted CP A sh al l be appoi n te d by t he pr ob ate courthav in g jurisdi ction over

t he de cea sed shar eho lder ’s es t at e. The com puta ti on of fair mar ket value by t he CP A unde r t his par agr aph s hall be fi nal and bi ndi ng on all part ies. 5.4 ***, t he rem

ai ni ng sh areholde r agrees to pur chase, an

d the e xe cu

tor of t he deceased

sh are hol de r s ha l l se l l , al l of the deceased shareholder’s in terest in t he co mmer cia l r eal

estat e, c ons i sti

ng of 9.1 9 a cre s, m

ore or l es s, u pon whi ch the Compan

y de al ershi

p is located in Morr is, Ill

in ois. *** The purchase price shal l b e fai r market val

ue as determi

ned b y a n i mpa rtial apprais er agreed upon by the executor and the purchasi ng sh areholde r. ***
*** 13. No t ice. *** No t wit hst anding a nything t o t he co nt ra ry in this Ag re ement , a ny noti ce , ex erc i se of option, req

ue st or othe r com m un i ca ti on r eq ui red orde sir ed sha ll be gi ve n to th e s pous e, h ei rs orle gatees of a decease d shareh older sh al l b e deem

ed to have been

deliv ered when

*** addressed

t o e ither (i) t he pe rso nal rep re sent at ive orsuc ces sor of

the dece ase d sh

areh old er or (ii) t he de ce as ed sha r eh o lde rat his-4- ad dr es s a s s ho wn o n t he bo o ks o f t he co mp an y. Tho mas died on M ay 27, 200 1. The will was filed and a pr o ba t e p r o ce ed ing wa s o pe ne d in Will Co un t y o n Ju ne 1, 20 01 . Le t t er s o f o ffice iss ue d t o William. On Jul y 5, 2001, W

il li am , as executor of Thomas’ s will , entered into a mem

oran dum of agr eement wi

th t he co rp or at ion ap po inting Ro ber t E. Go rd on, CPA, to val ue the corpor ate shares of stock. Go rdon served as b ot h the corporat ion’ s accountant si nce 1974and t he pe rso nal acc ou nt ant f orThomas

and h is wif e, Hele n Tal ty. Gordon was als o t he co us in o f T ho mas an d W illia m T alt y. Gordo n va

lue d Thomas ’s 50% i

nterest in the corpor ation at $628,900. The sa me m em ora n du m of ag re em en t ap poi n ted Sta n l ey D. Tw ai t to ap pr aise th e r ea l estate as recomm

ended to Will

ia m b y h is atto rney, Robert Whi

te, who is now de cea sed . T wai t value d Thomas ’s ownersh

ip i nterest in the real e state at $603,101. By le tt er dated August 23, 2001, Wi ll ia m’ s atto rney

notif ie d Hel en’s

atto rney of the apprai sed val ues o f t he co rp or at e st oc k by Go rd on, t he ap pr aised value o f the re al est at e by Tw ait, and t he purchase prices

f or Thom as’ s sh ares i n the corporati

on an d real estate. Th

e letter f urth er notif

ie d Helen’scounsel

of an A ugust 30, 2001, antici

pated closi

ng date for the sal

e of the stock and real esta te. Helen’scounsel

recei ved the l etter on August 24, 2001, but did n ot read it until A

ugust 28, 2001, because h

e was away

from the off ic e. On August 28, 2 001, Helen’scounsel im me dia tely fi le d an em ergen cy moti on wi th th e p rob ate courtse ek

i ng an orde r to res trai

n th e c l osi ng of the corp orate

stoc k a nd the l an d. Th e m oti on in cl uded a co mmentthat Helen ’s counsel previously

contacted Wil

li am ’s attor ney

regardin g the status of the apprai sal s, but no im mi nen t pro posed closi

ng date was di sclosed. On August 29, 2001, Will

ia m rece iv ed a l etter via fac si

mi le from General Motors st at ingt he-5-

cor por ation’s f

ranchi se a

greem en t woul d term

i na te on A ugust 31, 2001 . T he le tt er referen ced a pot entia l request for an18-m

onth extensi

on, but the deadli

ne to req ues t an e xt ensio n pr eda t ed t he letter by approxim

ately f our weeks. On August 30, 2001, by agreemen t o f the parties, the ci

rcuit court denied Hel

en’s em ergency m oti on, orde

red the red em ption of thecorp or ate

sto ck , a n d ordere d th

e s al e of th e r ea l estate to proceed on August 30, 200 1, at t he ag re ed a ppr aised values . P ur sua nt t o t he agreed order, t he stock redemption and real

estate sales occurred an

d the proceeds were subm itted to the probate estat e. On Decem ber 19, 2001, Hele

n f il ed a three-count petition to set aside the A ugust 30, 2001, sales of t he co rp or at e st oc k and t he real e state, and requested an order to remove and surch arge Wi ll ia m as the exe cutor . On June

28, 2005, a three-day trial on Hel en’s

petition com

me nced. On Ju ly 12, 200 5, th

e c i rcu i t cou rt i ss ue d a wri tten opi ni on and o rd er finding Tho mas kno wingly waived a ny confl ict o f int er es t wh en T ho mas ap po int ed Wil liam a s executor of hi s estate, but fi ndi ng that Will iam ’s act ions a s exe cut or co nst itu t ed ba d fait h and a n abus e o f discr et ion. As a result of these fi ndings, t he co ur t re moved Will iam as exec ut or , va cat ed t he sa le of T homas ’s st oc k t o t he co rp or at ion, app oint ed a ppr aiser s for t he sto ck and lan d, and awarded H elen

att orney fees , co st s, a nd ex pert witness f ees for Will

iam ’s vi olation of hi s fi

duciary duty. The co urt also ordered William fo r feit all executo r fees. By o r de rda t ed Ju ne 29 , 20 06 , t he co ur t de t er mined t he fair ma rket value of

the real e state, as of the da te of

Thom as ’s de ath, a s $ 2,7 00 ,10 0, a

n d en tered j udgm en t i n f av or of th e e sta te o f Thomas Ta lty and a gainst Will

iam in the amou nt of $ 769 ,5 62. The court further f ound the fai

r market val ue of Th omas ’s

50%sh are of the corp orate

stoc k a s of

t he da t e o f his deat h t o be $1, 154 ,1 00, and entered j udg men t i n f av or of the es tateof Thomas Talty and agai nst Wi ll ia m in the sum of $525,100,-6-

with c redit gi ven for $628,000 paid. By orde r da ted Jul y 31, 200 6, th

e c i rcu i t cou rt or dered W i l l i am

to rep ay the es tatef or atto rney fees and apprai sal

fees related to t he l

iti gation. The court al so entered judgment against Wi ll ia m i n f avor of the estate for lost rents from Thomas ’s sh

are of the real

estate for $547,006.14 as o f Ju ly 20, 200 6, and in t he amo unt of $ 222 ,4 91. 46 fo r T homas ’s sha re of lo st pr ofit s fro m the co rp or at ion. The circui t co urt deni ed Will

iam ’s m ot ion to re consider on August 23, 20 06 . William t imely appeal ed. We wi

ll in cl ude addi tional facts wh ere relev ant to o ur anal

ys is of the i ssues raised o n ap pe al. II. AN AL YSIS Re sp on den

t, Wi ll ia m Tal ty, rai ses som

e 22 is sues an

d subissueson appeal , most unsupported by ci tation to authority. Those i ssues an d subissues can

be o rg anized and more ef fi ci ently dis cussed as f i v e g en eral con ten ti on s of er ror. Fi rs t, Wi ll ia m a rgues the ci

rcuit court err oneously

granted Hel en Talty’s petition to set aside the sales of the corporate st ock and the real estate. Sec on d, Will

ia m cla ims t he circ uit co ur t er re d in app oint ingnew a ppr aiser s. T hird, Will iam submits t he ci

rcui t court i m properl y rem oved hi m as exe cutor. Fourth , Wi

l l i am ass erts th e ci

rcui t court er r o ne o us ly

entered j udgm en ts agains t him f or t he differe nce be t wee n t he sa le pr ices r ece ived and the fai r market val

ues of th e r ea l estate an d c orp ora te stock , pl

usas soc i ate d c ost s and a t t or ney fees. Fifth, Wi ll ia m a rgues t he ci rcuit court im

properly granted a t ur nove r o rd er t o H elen T alty. We exa mine each o f the five gen eral i ssues, together wi

th the i r rel ated subi ssues, seria tim . A. Set-Aside Order Wi ll ia m argu es th e c i rc ui t cou rt e rron eou sl y gran ted He l en Ta l ty ’s pe ti ti on to set asi de t he-7-

sa le of the corpor ate sto ck and the real estate. T he parties

agree the terms of

the stock red

em ption agr eement supersedethe

term s of T ho mas ’s will. William’ s br ief s t at es : “ T ho ug h t he t r ial c o ur t did not expressl y s tate t hat the court believed t he t er ms o f t he T ho mas T alt y will s up er ce de d t he t er ms of the stoc k re de m

ption a gre em en t, i t i s c l ea r f rom i ts ru l i ng s th at the tri al cou rt er ro neo usly and im pli ci tly did s o.” Wil

li am mi sconstrues the ci

rcuit court’s ruli

ng. We find not hing in the circu it co ur t ’s r uling t o imply tha t t he co ur t did no t ag r ee t he t er ms of the corpor ate sto ck redem ption agreem

ent superceded the wi

ll . Instead, the court found that Wi ll ia m breach ed hi s f iduc ia ry duty as exec ut o run de rT ho mas ’s will w he n he faile d t o mak e fu ll dis cl osure to Hel en as the s ole b enef ic ia ry of Thomas ’s estate. Wi ll ia m asserts t he ci

rcuit cou rt lacked aut hority to set aside the sale of Thom as’s sto ck because th e c orp ora

te st oc k r ede mpt ion ag re ement expr essly pr eclud ed a ny chall enge t o t he CPA’s valuat ion. Agai

n, we note, the court set asi de the sale of Thom as’s sto ck becaus e t he co ur t fou nd Wi ll ia m breach ed hi s f iduc ia ry duty as exec uto r of Thomas ’s wi

ll . We c onclude, even t hou gh t he stock redemption agreem ent superceded the wi

ll , Will ia m c ann ot rely on the terms of the s

to ck redempt io n

ag r ee men t t o vio lat e h is fid uc iar y o blig at io n t o He len as ex ec ut o ro f T ho mas ’s will. Ac co r di ng ly, wehol

d the c i rcu i t cou rt di d n ot err in setting as i dethe

sa l e of Th omas ’s

stoc k f or bre ach o f fi

duc iary du t y and t he exe rc ise o f bad fait h. Wi ll ia m argu es th e c i rc ui t cou rt i m pr ope rl y v ac ate d th

e August 30, 200 1, agre ed order . Al thoughthe c i

rcu i t cou rt’ s orde r s etti

ng as i dethe sa l e of the corp orate

stoc k had

the ef f ec t of nullif ying the August 30, 200 1, agre ed order , the c ourt di d not vaca te that order . In

set t ing aside t he sa l e, W i l l i am con ten ds , th e c i rcu i t cou rt i m prop erl y al l owe d H el

en Tal ty to chal l en gethe va l ua ti on of the corpor ation when the stock redemption agreem ent specifi cally prohib ited

her fro m challenging-8-

t he val uation. We rej ect this argum ent becaus e the court set aside the sale of the corporat e stock o nly be ca us e it fo un d W illiam br ea ch ed his fid uc iar y du t y as ex ec ut o run de rT ho mas ’s will. Wi ll ia m contends the ci

rcuit court im

properly applie d In re Esta teof Halas , 209 Ill . App. 3d 333 (1 99 1) , to t his case . I n Halas , the c ourt hel d, “Wh erea confl ict o f i nterest is approved or created by the testat or, t he f

iduc ia ry wi ll not be hel

d li abl e for his conduct unless the f iduc ia r y ha s acted dis ho ne st ly

or in bad f ai th, o r has a bused h

is dis cretion.” Halas , 209 Ill . App. 3d at 345. Wil li am argues Halas is i

nappli cable to this case

because Hel en wai

ved h er righ t t o subsequen

tly chal le nge t he apprais ed val

ue b y ag re ei n g to th e A ug us t 31 , 20 01 , ord

er . Al th oug h He l en ag re ed to the August 31, 20 01 , ord

er , that a gr eemen t wa s b as ed

on i n f orm ati on , s ub se qu en

tl y di sc ov er ed

to be in accurate. Helen’sag

re em en t to al l ow th e transa cti on s to go f

orwa rd d i d n ot affe ct he rr igh t t o su bse qu en t ly challeng e Will ia

m’ s actions

as exec uto r of Thomas ’s estate. In this case, the trial

court found that Wi ll ia m a cted in bad f ai th in ful fi ll in g hi s f iduc ia ry duty as exec uto r of Thomas ’s estate. Cle ar ly, T ho mas t rus t ed his bro t her and bu siness p ar t ner t o d ischar ge his c or po ra t e du t ies and hi s duties a s ex ec ut o rin g o o d fa it h. We ag r ee t ha t t he cir cu it court properly found Th omas wai ved any confl ict of in terest for Will

iam by placi ng Wi ll iam in mul tiple capaci

ties a s buy er, se ller, a nd fiduc iar y. We ob se

rve th at a n executor ca n se rve p oten ti al l y con f l i cti n g i n terests wit hou t exer cising ba d f ait h a s a fiduc iar y. The ul tim ate i ssue i n th i s ca se is wh

ethe r the c i rcui t court erred in

fi ndi ng W il li am ab us ed his di screti on by actin g in bad f ai th as executor of Thomas’ s estate. We wi ll not reverse a

tr ial cou rt ’s factual fi ndi ngs of bad f

aith unl ess those fi

ndi ngs are agains

t t he m ani fest wei ght of the evi den ce. In
reEstate of Lower, 365 Ill. App. 3d 469, 478 ( 2006). “A determi nation wil l b e found to be again

st t he man i f est we i gh t of th e ev i den ce

on l y wh en th e op pos i te co nc lus io n is c lea r ly

evident [c itat ion]-9-

orthe determi

nation i s unreasona

ble, arbi trary, or not based

on evi dence prese

nted.” In re D .F. , 201 I ll. 2d 4 76, 498 (2 002 ). “Unde r [ t he] manifest w eight of the evi dence standard, we gi

ve def erence to the trial

court as t he finder of fac t beca use [t he t rial co ur t ] is in t he bes t po sitio n t o o bser ve t he conduct an

d d em ea n or of th e p ar ti es an d th e wi tnesses.” In re D .F. , 2 01 I ll. 2d a t 498 -9 9. “A re v i ewi n g c our t, ther ef ore , m us t n ot s ub sti

tute its jud gment for t hat of t he t rial co ur t re gar ding t he cr ed i b i l i ty of wi tnesses, the wei

ght to be gi

ven t o t he evide nce, or t he in feren ces to be drawn.” In re D.F. , 201 Ill . 2d at 499. An execut o r is app oint ed by t he t est at or t o c ar ry o ut t he disp os itio ns made unde r t he test ato r’s wil l . Greene v. Firs t Nat io na l Ba nk of Chicago , 1 62 I ll. App. 3d 9 14, 921 (1 987 ). The exec ut or ow es a fiduciar y dut y to bot h t he t est at or ’s es t at e and the ben efi ci aries na med in t he will. Greene , 16 2 I ll. A pp . 3d at 92 1. T he r ela t io nshi p b etw een a n e xe cu tor an d a be ne f i ci ary i s th at of trust ee and cestui que

trust. Stokev. Wheeler , 3 91 I ll. 429 , 4 34 ( 194 5) . As such, an executor owes a duty of f ull di scl osureto the ben

efi ci aries under the testat or’s wil

l. See Regnery v. M

eyers , 28 7 I ll. App. 3d 354, 363 (1 997 ) ( “a t ru st ee o wes t he highes t dut y to his beneficiary t o fu lly and co mple t ely di scl ose al l material f acts re l ati ng to de al i ngs wi th the trust”). Here, the ci

rcuit court was part ic

ula rly tro ubled that Wi ll ia m e xerci sed bad f

ai th and b reached his duty of f

ull dis cl osure to Hel en. We agree wi th the trial

cour t’s determi

nat ion that Will

iam ’s f ail ure to mak

e f ull di scl osuret o H elen o f the t ra nsac t ions r elat ingto th e s al e of Thom as ’s cor porate stock and Thom

as’s i nteres t in the real estat e co nstitut ed bad faith or an abuse of Wil li am’s di screti on as e xecu t or of T homas ’s es t at e. Will iam admitt ed he di

d n ot s h ar e a n y i n f orm ati on wi th Hel en regar ding the est ate ’s tran sacti ons , i nc l udi ng the appra i sa l s or the cl osi ng da te f orsa l e of b oth t he corpo rate sto ck and Thom as’s s eparat e in t er es t in t he r ea l es t at e. William c laims all his-10-

com m un i ca ti on wi th Hel en occurred through thei r resp ecti ve attorney s. It i s ev i den t from the re cord that counsel f

or bot h parties

had l im ited contact prior to the cl osin g date. Wi ll ia m argues t hat t he st oc k r ede mpt ion ag re ement did no t re quir e him to disclo se a nything to Hel en. Wh

il e Wi ll ia m m ay not have h

ad a duty of di

sclosure to Hel en un

der the corpo rate sto ck red em ption ag re em en t, he d i d h av e a se pa ra te d uty of f ul l di sc l osu reto He l en

as executo r of Thomas ’s estate. We note the corpo rate sto ck was a part of that estate. The court not ed that Will ia m obtai ned a second apprai sal

of the real

estate, t he Mc Co nville ap pr ais al, several

months after closin

g on the sale of the real

estate and fai

le d to di sc l oseth at appraisa lto Hel en. The Mc Convi ll e apprai sal

in dic ated the fai

r market val

ue of the land was su bst an t ially

greater t han

the sale price . W i l l i am

ad m i tted h e di d n ot pr o vid e a co py o f t he Mc Co nville appra i sa l to He l en , ev

en thou gh the es tatewa s sti l l

ope n. It wa s ob

vi ous l y f i na nc i al l y be ne f i ci al f or William, as the purchaser of the real es tate , to ign

ore th e M cC onv

i l l e a ppr ai sa l to the de tri men t of Th om as’s wido w. It is inexplicable t hat t he exe cut or of a n est at e o r his at t or ney wo uld avo i d dis clo sing a fa vo r ab le appra i sal to the sole b enef

i ciary of the estate, un

l ess there was a co mpo nent of ba d fait h. Not only did Willi

am fail to disclo se t he Mc Co nvi lle ap pr ais al t o He len o rhe rco un se l, Wi ll ia m als o co nt inu ed t o r ely o n t he T wa it r ea l es t at e a pp r ais al, wh ich wa s u nr ea list ica lly favo r ab le to Wi ll ia m’ s i nterest and di

mi ni shed th e v al ue of Thom as ’s estate f or H el en . M ore ov er , w e a

gr ee wi th t he trial court that Wi ll

ia m kn ew or reasonabl

y s hould h ave kn own the Twait apprai sal wa s un r ea so na bly

low, based on Tw ait’s lim ited expe rience as a co mmercial re al est at e ap pr aiser and t he prim e l ocation of the real

estate. The ci rcui t court fu rther d eterm

i ne d tha t Wi l l i am ’sdeci

sion to all ow his cous i

n, R obert-11-

Go rd on, the corpor ation’s CPA, to prepare a “revi sed” apprai sal of the corporat e stock valuing t he stock at hal

f the origin

al apprais al after thi s liti

gation com

me nced consti

tut ed bad f ai th or an abuse of W i l l i am ’s

di scre ti on

as executor of Thom as ’s estate . We a

gr ee wi th th e c i rc ui t cou rt t hat t hi s act ion su ppo rt s a st ro ng infere nce o f bad fait h and a buse of d iscre t ion. Co nsider ingWilliam’ s co ur se o f co nduc t , t he co ur t ’s finding o f bad fait h is just ifi ed. We ca nn ot say the opposite conclus ion i s clearly evi dent or t hat the tri al

cour t ’s de t er minat io n is unreasonab le , ar bitr ar y, o r no t base d o n evidenc e presented. In re D .F. , 201 Ill . 2d at 498. Ac co r din gl y, we c onc lude t he t rial co ur t ’s finding t hat Will iam act ed in bad faith a nd abu sed hi s dis cretion as ex

ecutor o f Th

omas’ s estate is n

ot agai nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. B. Court -Appoin

ted Busin ess A pprais er Defend ant contends the ci rcuit court err ed i

n appoi ntin g a new C PA t o va lue t he business by co mple t ely

disre gar ding t he plain langua ge o f the co r po r at e s t o ck r ed emp t io n a gr ee men t . T he t er ms of t he co rp or at e r ede mpt ion ag re ement provided that, i n the event the corpor ation an d the personal re pr ese nt at iveof the d eceased shar eho lder ’s es t at e ar e una ble to agr ee o n a CP A to value t he cor porate st oc k, t he pr oba t e court shall appoin t a disi nterested CPA to value the c orpo rate sto ck. Howev er, t he probate cour t appointed a CPA af ter removi ng W il li am as exec uto r of Thomas ’s estate. Un der thes e c i

rc um sta n ce s, i t wa s n ot un re as on ab l e f

or th e c our t to el i m i n ate any attempt t o reach an agreem ent between the es

tat e and Wi

l l i am, as presi

den t of the corporation, si

nc e the court de ter m i n ed W i l l i am i m pr operl y pl ac ed h i s i n terests a b ov e th e e sta te’ s i n terest. Ad di t io na lly, W i l l i am

arg ue s th e n ew CP A se l ec ted by the cou rt, J ohn Rog ers , wa s n

ot “n eutral,” asreq

ui red by the corp orate

stoc k redempt ion a

greeme nt, because Hel

en’s atto rney pr ev io us ly

cons i dered

hi ri ng R ogers to v al

ue th e stock. H owev er, H el en ’s co un se l did no t r et ain-12-

Rogers. Wi

ll ia m cite s no aut hor ity re quir ingt hat any expe rt co nt act ed by a p ar t y dur ing litigat ion be dis qualif ie d fro m being app oint ed by t he cou rt. W i l l i am ’s f ai l ur e to c i te r ele va nt au t ho r it y re su lt s in a wai ver of th i s i ssue. Dillon v. Evanston Hospital , 19 9 I l l . 2d 48 3, 4 93 (2 00 2) . M ore ov er , to recogniz e suc h a

rule co uld ea sily

resul t in ab usi ve trial tactics where pa

rties could contact part ic

ula r ex pertswit h t he inte nt of d isqua lif ying them fro m serving t he co ur t . We f i nd n o support i n the rec ord to suggest Rogers was bi

ased. C. R

em ova l of Ex ecutor Wi ll ia m su bm i ts th e c i rcu i t cou rt i m prop erl y rem ove d h i m asexecutor a

nd f ai l ed to f ol l ow procedures f

or rem oval of a n exe cutor under the Prob ate Act of 1 975 (7 55 ILCS 5/23– 3 (West 2004) ). Sec

ti on 23-3 of t he Pr oba t e Act pr ovid es t hat befo re re moving an e st at e’s r epr ese nt at ive, t he courtshal l i ssue a cita t ion d irect ing t he representative to show cause why he sh ould not be rem

oved. The ex ec ut o rmay t he n file a res pons i ve pl eadi ng a nd a he ari ng i s held to determ

i ne wh ethe r the c ourt sho uld remove the executo r. 755 ILCS 5/23-3(c) (Wes t 200 4). A l thou gh W i l l i am cl ai m s h e di d n ot re ceive proper not ic e und

er se cti on 23- 3 of the Probate Act, he does not argue t hat he was prejudic ed in any way , nor does he request that he be rei nstated as executor. The record is clear that Wi ll ia m recei ved noticet hat Helen s ou ght hi s rem oval as exec uto r of her l

ate husban

d’s estate when

she f il ed her petition wi

th the court . Further, Will ia m a nswered Helen’s pet itio n and di

d n ot raise the i ss ueof co mplianc e wi

th se cti on 23- 3 of

the Prob ate Act. Wi

l l i am ha s, the ref ore, wai ve d this i ssue. Se e Kotvan v. Kirk , 321 Ill . App. 3d 7 33, 750 (20 01)(“ ‘P res erv ati on of a q ue sti on for review requires an ap pr o pr iat e o bje ct io n in t he co ur t be lo w [ cit ati on], and f ail ure to obj ect con sti

tutes wa i ver.’ Williamsburg Vill

age O w ner s’ As s’n v. Lauder Associates , 200 Ill . App. 3d 474, 479*** (1990 )”).-13-

Furtherm ore, Wi ll ia m h as not all eged or shown that he was prej ud ice d b y the me thod he recei

ved noticeof Hel en’s in tent t o have h

im removed as executor or t hat he was n ot giv en th e op por tun i ty t o be hear d o n t he i ssue. The error, i f an y , i s harm l ess . In re McMahon , 221 Ill . App. 3d 383, 387 (1991 ). D. S urcha rge of Ex ecutor Wi ll ia m asse rt s t he ci

rcuit court err oneously

entered judgm ents agai nst hi m f or t he diff erence between the sa l e p rice s r ec ei

ve d a nd the f ai r m ark et val ue s of t he real e state and corpo rate sto ck, plus associ ated costs a

n d a ttorn ey f ee s. W i l l i am

cl ai m s th e $ 52 5,1 00 j udgm

en t e ntered ag ain st him ind ividua lly

was er ro neo us be cau se t he co rp or at ion wa s o bligat ed t o p ur chas e t he sha re s. Ac co rd ing to Wi ll ia m, the court di d no t ha ve the authority to enter judgm

ent agai nst hi m i ndi vi dual ly for an obl i ga ti on bel ongin g t o t he co rp or at ion. Altho ugh w e ag re e t hat t he st oc k r epu rc hase agr eement antic ipa ted t he corpo ration would purch ase the sh ares of st oc k, Will

iam is the s ole s har eho lder of t he corp orati on and the onl

y pe rson who profi

ted f rom h i s b re ach of f i du ci ar y du ty to Hel en . The

record shows that Wi ll

ia m, i ndi vi du al ly, and no t t he co rp or at ion, pur chas ed t he sha re s o f sto ck fr om t he estate. Ac co r di ng ly, t he cir cu it co ur t pr o pe r ly h el d Wi ll ia m personally

li abl e for the di ff

erence between the purch

ase pri ce and the f

ai r market val

ue of the stock. Wi ll ia m contends the $769,562 j udgme nt entered agai

nst hi m was erroneous because

the trial courtdid no t expr essly set aside t he August 30, 2001, sale of the real

estate. We dis agree. As n ot ed earl i er, althoug h the circuit co urt did not expressly vacate t he August 30, 2 001, or der, the co urt ’s order had the ef

fect of setting asi de the sales. Here, the court si mpl y h el d Wi ll ia m acc ou nt able for t he dif feren ce between w

hat he pai d for the real

estate and its f

ai r market val

ue. Will iam claim s t he t rial co ur t er re d in awa rd ing lost re nt s and pr ofit s and that t he court was-14-

“d o ub le counting”

dam ages. However, we not e T homas ’s es t at e wa s ent itled t o r ent s and prof i ts p rior to the August 30 , 20 01 , sa le of t he r eal est at e and st oc k. The judg ments ent er ed by t he co ur t for t he dif feren ce bet wee n t he act ual pu rc hase pr ice and t he mor e r ece nt app ra ised va lues o f the st oc k and land did not incl

ude lost rent s and profits. The t rial co ur t set aside t he sale of the st ock , and T homas’s estate was, t herefore, entitled to Thomas’s shar e of the profi ts si nc e A ugust 30, 2001 . Furth

er, Wi ll ia m was obl iga ted to pay rent to Thomas ’s estate, as the co-owner o f t he lan d, un t il he sati sf ie d the judgm ent becaus e he h

ad recei ved al l the ren t from the corporat ion on the l and. Wi ll ia m argu es th e c our t b ased damages f

or lost re nts f or th e l an d on sp ecul ati on or conj ecture. Here, the record is clea r t hat the corpor ation was pay in g each of Wi ll ia m a nd Thom as $10,500 per month f

or rent, and com

putation of actual l

ost rents was accurately

determi ned Wi ll iam also contends the court based da mag esf or lost c orporateprof

i ts on sp ecul ati on or conj ecture. Al

though it i s true that damages for lost pr ofit s ca nnot be based upon conj ecture or sheer sp ecul ati on ( Midland Hotel Corp. v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. , 118 Ill . 2d 306, 31 6 ( 19 87 ) ) , it is not necess ary that

th e a moun t of l ost pr of i ts b e p roven

wi th ab sol ute certai n ty ( Vendo Co. v. Stoner , 58 Il l . 2d 289 , 310 (1 974)). “Bei ng m erely prospective, suc h [lo st ] p ro fits will, t o s ome e xt ent , be un ce r t ain an d in ca pa ble of cal cul ati on with m athem atical precis ion. A s such , ‘[a] recovery m ay be h ad f orprospe cti

ve prof i ts when there ar e any cri ter i a b y wh i ch th e p rob ab l e p rof

i ts c an b e e sti mate d w i th
r ea so na ble certainty .’ ” Midland Hotel Cor p. , 11 8 I ll. 2d at 315-16, quo ting Barnett v . Caldw ell Furniture Co. , 277 Il

l . 286, 28 9 (191 7). Wi ll ia m argues that he was onl

y gi ven two weeks t o review a

nd ref ute the fi gures and that lost pr of i ts s h oul d n ot h av e b een aw arde d. Th e tr

i al cou rt’ s a ss es sm

en t of l ost pr of i ts was base d o n t he evi dence t ende re d t o t he co ur t . Willi am, t he pr eside nt and s ole s har eho lder of t he co rp or at ion d ur ing-15-

t he relev ant tim e period f or which lost profi ts were meas

ured, did n

ot in tro duce an

alt er na t ive ba sis f orthe tri al cou rt to consi

de r, n or doe s h e a ss ert a ny ev i de nc e on appeal to suggest the co urt ’s asse ssment was unf

ai r. We cann

ot say tha t the cou rt er red i n r el y i ng on th e c al cul ati on of l ost pr of i ts pr o vid ed by t he es t at e’ s a t t o rne y. Wi ll ia m furt her co mplains the t rial co ur t er re d in awa rd ing pu nitive dam ag es t o H elen. Pu nitive dam

ages areto be awarded onl

y w hen a respondent’s conduct is wi ll ful or o utrageous due to ev i l moti ve ora reckl ess i

ndiff erence to the rights

of othe rs. Proc tor v. Davis , 291 Ill . App. 3d 265, 285 ( 19 97 ) . Whe t he rpu nit ive da mag es ar e a va ilable as a m atter of law i s an issuewe review de novo . Franz v. Calaco Dev elopment Corp ., 352 Ill . App. 3d 1129, 1137 (2004 ). A tri al court’s factual fi ndi ngsof will

ful ness or o ther aggravat in

g fac tors wil l

be rev erse d onl

y wh en such f i ndi ngs are agai nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. Franz , 352 Ill . App. 3d at 1137-38. We wil l rev erse a trial court ’s decisi on to award puni tive da ma ges bas ed on those f

actual f i ndi ngs onl y i f the c ourt abuse d i ts di scre tion . Franz , 352 Ill . App. 3d at 1138. He re, w e co nclude t he t rial co ur t or der ed William t o p ay Helen’s at t or ney fees, co st s, a nd ex pert wit ness fee s for violat ingh i s f i du ci ar y du ty to Helen. Att or ney fees a nd co st s ar e an e lement of punit ivedam

ages . Glass

v. Burkett

, 64 I ll. A pp . 3d 67 6, 68 3- 84 ( 19 78 ) . Su ch an aw ar d w as cle ar ly ne ces sary to pun i sh W i l l i am f or disr eg ard

i ng the righ ts of Hel en as be ne ficia ry un de rT ho mas ’s will. Ob vio us ly, t his punit ivedamag e aw ar d inur es t o H elen’s be nefit. Ho weve r, Will iam doe s no t cite any case l aw wh i ch hol dstha t a b en ef i ci ary may not be ne fit fr o m pu nit ive da mag e a wa r ds . We r eje ct t his argu men t. Ba se d on

the rec or d in t his c as e, we ca nno t sa y t he t r ial c o ur t ab us ed it s d isc r et io n in or der ingWi

ll iam to pay Hel

en’s atto rney f

ees, cost s, and expert witness fees to punis hWill iam ’s
m i sc on du ct.-16-

Wi ll ia m n ext argues the trial

cou rt erre d in assessin

g t he admi

nistrat or ’s fees, atto rney f ees, and costs because thecourt’ s a wa rd ex ce eded th e cus tom

ar y f ee s a n d c ost s of

rou ti n e e sta te adm in is trat ion. A gai n, Wi ll ia m’ s argum

ent is not support ed

by any authority an

d he h as, therefore, wai ved the ar gument. D espite Wil li am’swai ve r, w e c an not say t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in asse ssing Willi am f or f ee s a n d c ost s i n cu rre d a s a re su l t of l i ti ga ti on re su l ti n g f rom h i s b ad f ai th . William’ s conduct ne ce ss i

tate d l i ti ga ti on, wh i ch othe rwise wou l d n ot ha ve be en ne ces sary

if Wi ll ia m h ad acted in good faith as

executor of Thomas’ s estate. Wi ll ia m complai ns that he was or dered t o reimb urse th e e sta

te f or a ttorn ey f ee s a n d c ost s pa id by the es tatewh

i l e W i l l i am wa s exe cu

tor. W i l l i am con ten dstha t he pur su ed l i ti ga ti on in good f ai th and sh ould not be personal

ly li abl e for the estate’s litigation ex penses (see McKay

v. Riley , 13 5 I ll. 586, 590 (18 91) ). H owe ve

r, w he n l i ti ga ti on i s purs ue d f ort he bene fit o f the exec ut or per so nally, and not for t he bene fit o f the est at e, t he co st sho uld be borne by the executor personall

y. See Edwar

ds
v. Lane , 33 1 I l l . 44 2, 4 51 -5 2 ( 19 28 ), c i ti ng Fel senthal v. Kline , 214 Il l . 121, 12 4 (190 5). Ac co r di ng ly, we find t he t r ial c o ur t pr o pe r ly ordered Wi

ll ia m to reim burse the estate’s attorney f ees and costs i

ncurred d uri ng h i s ti me as ex ecutor. Wi ll ia m contends that the trial

court granted

excess iv e atto rney fees and costs becaus e the fe e pe ti ti on f or H el en ’s attor n ey f ee s, ex pen se s, an

d e x pert f ee s d i d n ot m eet th e r eq

ui re men ts unde r I llino is law . Ho we ve r , William d o es no t sp ec ify t he de ficie nc ies in Helen’s fee pe t itio n. A trial judge’s f am i l i ari ty wit h litigat ion p er mits t he judge to independently eval uate t he necessi

ty and reasonabl eness of fees and serv ic es. See Estate of Price v. Universal Casualty C o. , 334 Ill . App. 3d 1010, 101 5 (2002 ). Ac cordi

ngl y , wi thout m ore specifi

c di rection asto how the fee s and costs were exc essi ve, the court ’s determi

nation w il l s tand.-17-

Wi l l i am argue s the

tria l courtim properly found h im in crim in al contempt. The record does not support any reasonable

argumen t t hat the court held W

il li am in crim in al co nt emp t . We find t his ar gument unsu ppo rt ed a nd unw or t hy of furt her discu ssio n. E. Turnover Order Will iam ’s fi nal argumen t is that the trial

court erred in

grantin g a turnoverorder t o H elen, re quir ingW i l l i am ’s

as se ts be t ur ne d o ve rt o He len . William a r gu es t he jud gme nt aw ar ds ag ain st him are not fi nal , so t hey

cann ot be sub je ct t o s upp lementa ry pr oc eed ings. Will iam seems t o be ar guing that beca use t he judg ments did no t co nt ain the wo rd s “final and enfo rc eable, ” t he orders werenot f i na l , y et he doesnot c i

te a ny au thor i ty f orsu ch a n ar gu ment . A s no t ed in t he a dminist ra t o r’ s br ief, upon William’ s filing o f a p r o pe rap pe al bon d, t h e tr i al cou rt ordere d th

e g ar n i sh ee to retur n to Wi ll ia m t he fund s t hat had be en ga rnished and t he is sue i s, therefore, moot. Mo reover, we note t hat if the orders and j udgme

nts were not fi

nal and en forceabl e, they woul

d not be appealabl

e. CONCLUSION Fo r the forego ing r ea so ns, we affir m t he o r de r s a nd jud gme nt s o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Will Co un t y. Af fi rmed. HOLDRID GE an

d O’ BRIEN , JJ., c oncu

r.