Court Opinion

ID: 9715003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:51:18.516997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:30.434982
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Warren v. Burris, 325 Ill. App. 3d 599, 602 (2001). I believe that a genuine issue of material fact exists over whether Helen Peters substantially complied with the policy terms to effect a change of beneficiary. Evidence exists that it was Peters’ intent to change her beneficiary, but to purposely delay submitting the change of beneficiary form due to her belief that Stenzel and Elmore would fight her actions. This evidence could convince a trier of fact that Peters had substantially complied with the requirements to change her beneficiary. Likewise, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Stenzel was aware of Peters’ desire to change her estate plan by making Hoopingarner the beneficiary of the New York Life annuity. As a genuine issue of material fact exists, I would reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. I therefore respectfully dissent.