Opinion ID: 693956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Kane County Circuit Court Order

Text: 10 The 1992 Kane County Circuit Court order directed Gary to convey his interest in the property to Melanie. 8 The order does not mention the existence of the trust, and if we must interpret the order narrowly (as Crooks requires us to construe quitclaim deeds), we may not construe the order to constitute an assignment of Gary's beneficial interest in the trust to Melanie. The order, however, unlike a quitclaim deed, is not a specialized form of transfer that applies only to real property. Rather, the Kane County Circuit Court sought to enforce the divorce agreement, which provided that the Oregon, IL property would be sold and that Gary would pay child support to Melanie out of his share of the proceeds. Because the property had not been sold, Gary had not paid child support to Melanie. The Kane County court obviously intended to transfer Gary's interest in the property to Melanie, whether a personal or real property interest, so she could use the proceeds as child support. 11 The instant case is an equitable action: Melanie and Premier Trust seek a declaration that Gary retains no beneficial interest in the trust. The recognition, execution and control of a trust or equitable interest is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of equity. County of Cook v. Barrett, 344 N.E.2d 540, 549 (Ill.App.1975); see also People ex rel. Daley for Use of Cook County v. Warren Motors, Inc., 483 N.E.2d 427, 431 (Ill.App.1985), aff'd, 500 N.E.2d 22 (Ill.1986). Under Illinois law, equity considers that as done which ought to be done. Cesena v. DuPage County, 582 N.E.2d 177, 180 (Ill.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1953 (1992); Just Pants v. Wagner, 617 N.E.2d 246, 249 (Ill.App.1993). As noted above, the Kane County court intended to transfer Gary's interest in the trust to Melanie. By ordering Gary to convey to Melanie his interest in the real property rather than the land trust, the court may not have used the proper form. In an equitable action, however, Illinois law requires us to look past the form to the substance of the Kane County court order. Cf. Kassuba v. Realty Income Trust, 562 F.2d 511, 513 (7th Cir.1977); Reese v. Melahn, 292 N.E.2d 375, 379 (Ill.1973); Just Pants, 617 N.E.2d at 253; In re Custody of Mayes, 409 N.E.2d 12, 15 (Ill.App.1980). We have no doubt that the court intended to transfer Gary's beneficial interest in the trust as well as whatever real property interest he may have retained in the Oregon, IL property to Melanie. Thus, equity demands that we construe the Kane County court order as an assignment of any beneficial interest in the trust that Gary may have possessed to Melanie. Gary retains no beneficial interest in the trust. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 12 AFFIRMED.