Court Opinion

ID: 9382092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 20:03:29.356464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:36.951460
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 211586-U
                                                                                FIFTH DIVISION
                                                                                  March 24, 2023

                                         No. 1-21-1586

 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
 limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
 ______________________________________________________________________________

                                             IN THE
                               APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                       FIRST DISTRICT
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 IN RE ESTATE OF GRACE BROOKS, Deceased.                      )   Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                                              )   of Cook County.
 (Quentin Adams, Appellant).                                  )
                                                              )   No. 07 P 4294
                                                              )
                                                              )   Honorable
                                                              )   Carolyn J. Gallagher,
                                                              )   Judge, presiding.

        PRESIDING JUSTICE DELORT delivered the judgment of the court.
        Justices Mitchell and Lyle concurred in the judgment.

                                            ORDER

¶1    Held:   We dismiss this appeal because the appellant failed to serve the notice of appeal on
              the necessary parties.

¶2    Quentin Adams appeals from the circuit court’s dismissal of his grandmother Grace Brooks’

probate estate case, arguing that the court should have granted his motions to be named executor
No. 1-21-1586

of Brooks’ estate, provided him an accounting of the estate, and ordered a distribution to him from

the estate. We dismiss the appeal.

¶3                                        BACKGROUND

¶4     Grace Brooks died on September 6, 2005. A petition for probate of will and for letters

testamentary filed in June 2007 listed Vineta Adams (Brooks’ daughter) and the appellant Quentin

Adams (Vineta’s son and Brooks’ grandson) as Brooks’ heirs and legatees. 1 On August 3, 2007,

the circuit court appointed Vineta as the independent administrator of Brooks’ estate. Also on

August 3, Thomas G. Clifford of Standard Bank & Trust Company filed a declination of office, in

which he declined to act as representative of the estate.

¶5     On December 16, 2009, Christine Marshall filed a motion to withdraw as attorney for

Vineta, claiming their relationship “broke down” because Vineta filed an ARDC complaint against

Marshall. Marshall further claimed the estate had “no liquid assets,” and Vineta refused to sell

Brooks’ house, meaning Vineta would likely be unable to pay any future substitute trustee. In a

simultaneous motion for appointment, Marshall explained that Brooks’ will “provided for an

institutional and a private co-trustee. Both proposed trustees refused to serve.” The motion

contained Vineta’s request “that the Public Administrator’s Office or the Office of the Public

Guardian be appointed as trustee.” The circuit court continued these motions on multiple occasions

in 2010, but the record does not reflect that the court ever ruled on them.

¶6     On August 15, 2019, after a long period of inactivity in the case, Adams filed a motion

requesting to “finalize” Brooks’ will because the “executor refuses to execute duties.” On August

23, 2019, the circuit court continued the matter, and instructed Adams to retain counsel. On

       1
         Because Quentin Adams and his mother Vineta Adams share a last name, we refer to
Vineta by her first name.
                                                 2
No. 1-21-1586

September 27, 2019, the court entered another order, warning that it would dismiss the matter if

Adams did not appear with counsel at the next court date. It is not clear from the record what

occurred on the next listed court date, October 28, 2019.

¶7     On January 11, 2021, Adams filed another motion, in which he requested the circuit court

to name him trustee and co-executor of Brooks’ estate, and further requested an accounting of, and

distribution from, the estate. The record suggests that Adams may have attached several documents

to this filing, including the front page of Brooks’ will, but the remainder of the will, including the

main substance thereof, is absent from the record. Between May and October 2021, Adams filed

numerous additional motions and petitions requesting the same or similar relief.

¶8     On some date before November 12, 2021, the Cook County Public Administrator filed a

cross-petition for letters of administration for Brooks’ estate, although the petition does not appear

in the record. The circuit court continued the matter to January 26, 2022, for resolution of the

Public Administrator’s motion.

¶9     On December 1, 2021, the circuit court, on its own motion, ordered that “the estate [was]

hereby closed unadministered and the case is dismissed,” explaining that the court “reviewed the

case file and observed that *** Vineta Adams has taken no action in the case since July 2010.”

¶ 10   On December 2, 2021, Adams filed an emergency motion to re-open the matter. He filed

similar motions on December 3 and 7.

¶ 11   On December 8, 2021, the circuit court entered an order stating, in relevant part, that the

case had been “dismissed with prejudice,” and instructing Adams that he was barred from filing

any further pleadings in the matter. In the order, the court emphasized that Adams was not an

attorney, and thus, pursuant to In re Estate of Mattson, 2019 IL App (1st) 180805, he could not

appear on his behalf as an executor or “trustee” of Brooks’ estate. The court further stated that it

                                                  3
No. 1-21-1586

had explained to Adams on multiple occasions “that legal representation [was] required.” This

appeal followed.

¶ 12                                      ANALYSIS

¶ 13   On appeal, Adams contends that the circuit court erred by not granting his requests to (1)

be named executor of Brooks’ estate, (2) receive an accounting of the estate, and (3) receive a

distribution from the estate.2 Though no appellee’s brief was filed in this case, we resolve this

appeal on appellant’s brief only because the record is simple, and the claims can be resolved

without an appellee’s brief. See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63

Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976).

¶ 14   Based on the record before us, we dismiss Adams’s appeal because he failed to name the

proper and necessary parties as appellees and serve them with the notice of appeal. In attempting

to appeal the circuit court’s order, Adams engaged in the incorrect assumption that the appeal was

in the form of a new lawsuit against the circuit court judge. The lone opposing party whom Adams

named and served was not a party at all, but rather was Circuit Court Judge Carolyn Gallagher,

who had presided over the estate in its later stages. Judge Gallagher was not a proper party to the

appeal. The proper parties, at least, included Vineta, the independent administrator of Brooks’

estate, and the Public Administrator, who had a pending cross-petition at the time the circuit court

dismissed the matter. The Illinois Supreme Court Rules require the appellant to “serve the notice

of appeal upon every other party and upon any other person or officer entitled by law to notice.”

Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(c) (eff. July 1, 2017). Because the Public Administrator’s and Vineta’s rights

       2
         He also wanted to be named as “trustee” of the estate, but that characterization is legally
incorrect. We presume he wanted to be named as the trustee of some testamentary trust created by
his grandmother’s will.
                                                 4
No. 1-21-1586

could have been adversely affected by a ruling on the merits here, they were entitled to notice, and

Adams’s failure to provide it constitutes grounds for dismissal. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v.

Zwolinski, 2013 IL App (1st) 120612, ¶ 14 (“failure to serve a copy of the notice of appeal on

parties who may be adversely affected by the appellate court’s decision may result in dismissal of

the appeal”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

¶ 15    We note that this appeal also warrants dismissal because Adams failed to include a

complete statement of facts, or include any citations to the record, in violation of Illinois Supreme

Court Rule 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). See Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287,

¶ 77. The fact that he is a pro se litigant does not excuse these failures. Wing v. Chicago Transit

Authority, 2016 IL App (1st) 153517, ¶ 7.

¶ 16    Furthermore, even if we were not required to dismiss Adams’s appeal, his claims would

still fail on the merits for two reasons. First, as the circuit court correctly explained, a non-attorney

cannot appear on his own behalf as executor of an estate, even where, as here, he may also be a

beneficiary of the estate. See Mattson, 2019 IL App (1st) 180805, ¶¶ 6-7. The Mattson court

explained, “although a pro se litigant is entitled to represent his own personal interests, a non-

attorney cannot represent another’s legal interests on behalf of that individual,” and further

clarified that, “this rule includes a non-attorney seeking to personally represent the legal interests

of an estate.” Id. ¶ 6. Additionally, Adams’s claims fail because the record is insufficient; it does

not contain a full copy of Brooks’ will or transcripts of the hearing(s) concerning the circuit court’s

ultimate decision to dismiss this matter. Without these materials, we would not have been able to

make an independent judgment of the propriety of the court’s decision; instead, we would have

had to assume that the decision was “in conformity with the law” and “properly supported by

                                                   5
No. 1-21-1586

evidence,” and affirmed the circuit court accordingly. See Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 392

(1984).

¶ 17      While we appreciate Adams’s fervent desire to become involved in his grandmother’s

estate, he must accept responsibility for persisting in his own incorrect view of how to proceed

with this matter. He filed approximately 18 repetitive motions with this court seeking emergency

relief and expedited consideration of his appeal, arguing that he was entitled to relief under the

terms of his grandmother’s will, but he failed to provide this court with a copy of the will from the

certified record. This court instructed him on multiple occasions to cease his improper filings and

provided him with contact information for legal aid services, of which he apparently chose not to

avail himself. Accordingly, none of these motions succeeded.

¶ 18      Finally, we express our confusion with the long pendency of the open estate without (so

far as the record shows) the court receiving a status report from the named and bonded independent

administrator with will annexed, nor a final accounting, for nine years. It is our understanding that

it is the practice of the Probate Division of the circuit court of Cook County to require status reports

on dormant estate cases. We direct the clerk of this court to send copies of this order to the Public

Administrator and to Vineta, and we respectfully request that the Public Administrator review the

file to determine what action, if any, its office should take with respect to the possibly unresolved

disposition of Brooks’ assets. We further direct the clerk of this court to correct the caption in this

court’s docket to that shown at the beginning of this order, which is correct pursuant to Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 330 (eff. July 1, 2017).

¶ 19                                       CONCLUSION

¶ 20      We dismiss this appeal because Adams failed to serve the necessary parties with the notice

of appeal or any other documents relevant thereto.

                                                   6
No. 1-21-1586

¶ 21   Appeal dismissed.

                           7