Court Opinion

ID: 9885128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:31:01.003035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:44.185572
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Underwood, dissenting: In my judgment, the majority have misinterpreted both the preceding case law and the legislative mandate set forth in sections 90 and 91 of the Probate Act. Today’s decision, which extends indefinitely the time within which the validity of a will must be determined, conflicts directly with the legislatively determined policy favoring speedy settlement of decedent’s affairs made apparent by sections 90 and 91. Stephens v. Collison, 249 Ill. 225, heavily relied upon in the majority opinion, was decided before section 91 was enacted. I believe the case to be no longer persuasive, for section 7 of the Wills Act, upon which that decision was predicated, made no provision concerning necessary parties. Section 91 specifically enumerates the parties required to be joined in suits of this nature. That this distinction should be determinative has previously been announced in Strachan v. Nisbet, (7th cir.), 202 F.2d 216, 220, which characterized Stephens as not in point, and stated “The Probate Act of 1939, section 91, requiz'es that all heirs, etc., be made parties to the suit. In a suit to contest a will where that section has not been complied with, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Time and again the Supreme Court of Illinois has passed upon the power of courts in will contests. It has uniformly held that the jurisdiction granted under the statute must be exercised in the mode and manner therein prescribed.” It seems to me clear that Strachan v. Nisbet regarded Illinois law as settled and as prohibiting joinder of statutorily required parties subsequent to the expiration of the nine-month period, but the majority opinion disregards this holding as turning “on issues of Federal jurisdiction not applicable here.” The majority find further justification for today’s decision in Fleshner v. Copeland, 13 Ill.2d 72, but I do not read that case as authority for the result reached here. There the executor, through apparent inadvertence, was not named as such in the prefatory clauses of the complaint but was “adequately, although defectively named defendant in the [body of] the complaint as originally filed.” (13 Ill.2d at p. 76.) The court there said (p. 74) : “Under the facts of this case, we conclude that plaintiffs properly invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court within the nine-month period prescribed by section 90 of the Probate Act above cited. While the executor was not named in the caption or the introductory paragraph, he was specifically named as defendant in the body of the complaint.” (Emphasis supplied.) To me, the clear import of Fleshner is that-, absent the naming of the- executor as a defendant in the body of the complaint, the motion to amend the caption of the complaint and summons to add him as a defendant after the nine-month period had elapsed would have been denied. I believe the court thus clearly intimated that the joinder of necessary parties within the time required was of a jurisdictional nature. While the majority distinguish Ohio decisions reaching an opposite result on grounds of an “evident” statutory difference, I perceive no distinction of substance between the Ohio requisite that “an action * * * shall be brought” and our language requiring that the contestant “file a complaint”. For the foregoing reasons and for those appearing in the well-considered opinion of the appellate court herein (53 Ill. App. 2d 81), I believe the failure to join necessary parties defendant within the required time demands dismissal of the complaint. The judgments of the trial and appellate courts should be affirmed. Mr. Justice Solfisburg joins in this dissent.