Cecchini v. Kuehn
| Decision Date | 29 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-17-0382,1-17-0382 |
| Citation | 2018 IL App (1st) 170382 -U |
| Parties | PAUL A. CECCHINI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM R. KUEHN; WILLISTON, McGIBBON & KUEHN; THEODORE KARVIDAS; FRANCIS M. MARTINEZ; JOHN PETER CURIELLI; GEOFFREY SHAW; JANICE A. PIELET; and RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County
Honorable Sanjay T. Tailor, Judge Presiding
Held: Where heir filed suits before and after his mother's death challenging whether she should have been helped by her daughter, attorneys, an investment advisor, and a physician, to amend her estate plan in order to equally benefit her two children, the trial court properly dismissed the son's second action on the basis of res judicata, a statute of limitations, and a statute of repose.
¶ 1 Paul A. Cecchini appeals from the dismissal of an amended complaint he filed against legal, investment, and medical professionals whom he contends conspired to "trick" his mother into reviving a prior version of her estate plan which equally benefited her two children, instead of primarily benefitting Paul. Paul sought damages for the loss of the "just apportionment" of his mother's estate. In response to the defendants' various arguments, the trial judge found that the action Paul initiated in 2016 after his mother's death was barred by res judicata, due to a suit Paul filed in 2011 before his mother's death concerning the same revision to her estate plan, and was also barred by the running of statutes of limitations and repose for claims against medical and legal professionals. In both suits, Paul sought a determination that his mother lacked testamentary capacity or was unduly influenced by his sister to revise the estate planning documents. Paul contends the res judicata finding is in error because (1) he voluntarily withdrew and amended his complaint in the first lawsuit in order to exclude certain defendants before they could answer and "officially [become] parties," therefore the two suits do not involve the "same parties" (2) he filed the first suit as a purported trustee, rather than as an individual, therefore, the two suits do not involve the "same parties," and (3) the court's "with prejudice" dismissal of certain defendants from the first lawsuit was entered after an oral motion, instead of a written motion, so it was not "on the merits." Paul also contends that the statutory arguments regarding the timeliness of his second action were misdirected because the conspiracy against him is still ongoing and causing damage given that the professionals are defending this suit.
¶ 2 Paul and his sister, Leana, were Norma A. Cecchini's only children and became her only heirs when her husband, Dorando, died in 1974, when Norma was in her 50's. Norma's acumen at buying, selling, and managing real property in Chicago and its suburbs allowed her to accumulate significant assets. In Norma's later years, her real estate holdings included her residence in Chicago; a condominium in Longboat Key, Florida, that she co-owned with her brother, Franco, and sister-in-law, Delia; a six-unit apartment building in River Forest, Illinois; and a similar apartment building in Elmwood Park, Illinois. Norma also maintained an asset account with RBC Capital Markets, LLC, which was managed by Janice A. Pielet.
¶ 3 When Norma was 67, she executed estate planning documents on April 12, 1990 that created a revocable living trust over which she was the trustee, Paul was the successor trustee, and Leana was the next successor trustee. It appears that Norma executed other documents which are not part of the record, such as deeds or a will conveying various assets including the four pieces of real estate into the trust. Norma specified in her 1990 trust agreement that during her lifetime, she was to receive any trust income and principal necessary for her support and comfort or her best interests; and that after her death and the death of two other individuals, all the remaining trust assets were to be distributed immediately "absolutely," "unconditionally" and "equally" to Paul and Leana.
¶ 4 Norma subsequently executed two revisions which were advantageous to Paul, but her third revision restored a more equal division of assets between her two children and Paul has made numerous attempts to invalidate the document. More specifically, on February 10, 1998, Norma executed a First Amendment to her trust documents in which she shifted most of her real estate to Paul. She left Paul both of the apartment buildings and her share of the Florida condominium that she co-owned with Franco and his wife, and she directed Paul to sell her share of the condo and take the proceeds. Norma left only her Chicago residence to Leana, which was the least valuable of the four properties. A few years later, on October 3, 2000, Norma executed a First Restatement of her trust agreement. In this modification to her estate plan, Norma gifted to Paul, upon her death, "all interest" in the Florida condo, suggesting that Franco and Delia were no longer part-owners. Norma also now left 80% of the balance of the estate to Paul and only 20% to Leana. The 2000 trust document did not expressly dispose of either apartment building; however, according to Paul, Norma executed a separate document that directed Chicago Title Land Trust Company to issue a trustee's deed conveying the River Forest six-flatto him.
¶ 5 The fourth and final version of Norma's estate planning documents was a Second Restatement which she executed on October 13, 2010. The 2010 revision was in effect 15 months later when she was declared disabled in 2012 and still in effect when she died three years after that, at the age of 92. The 2010 trust document and a will bearing the same date included an "Introduction" section and "Background" paragraph in which Norma recounted that when she designated Paul to be the joint tenant on certain bank accounts, she had done so for her own convenience and only for her lifetime and, thus, upon her death, the bank accounts were to be considered part of her estate and distributed accordingly. After her death, Paul was to take the Florida condominium, and Leana was to take the Chicago residence and the Elmwood Park apartment building. Paul and Leana were then to equally share the balance of the trust, instead of taking the 80-20 division which had been in effect for about 10 years. In other words, as of 2010, each child had received or would receive one apartment building and one private residence, and the remaining assets were equally split between the two Cecchini children. Norma no longer named either child as a successor trustee and indicated that Comerica Bank & Trustee was her only successor trustee.
¶ 6 A few months later, in February 2011, Paul sued his sister, his mother, Norma's attorney Francis M. Martinez, RBC Capital Markets where Norma maintained an investment account, RBC investment advisor Pielet, and Comerica Bank, where Norma also maintained an account, and contended the defendants were frustrating his attempts to manage his mother's assets after he and her physician had determined she was no longer competent to do so. (Norma would not be declared incompetent by a probate court judge until January 2012.) Paul's four-count action in the Chancery Division, captioned Cecchini v. Cecchini, 11-CH-06902, and entitled "Petition forInstructions and for Other Relief" was based on the 1990, 1998, and 2000 documents only. In our summary of this pleading and Paul's other subsequent pleadings, we have included his individual paragraph numbers. Paul alleged and The 2000 trust document indicated Norma could be replaced as trustee due to "incapacity or incompetency," and that a "determination of my inability shall be made in writing, signed by my personal physician, and [Paul]." Paul alleged, Paul filed suit in his capacities as (1) as an individual, that is, as a beneficiary of the residue of the trust, (2) "as trustee" of the trust, and as (3) "next friend" of his mother, meaning that he was representing her interests because she was under disability or otherwise unable to maintain a suit on her own behalf and did not have a legal guardian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_friend (last visited Jan. 26, 2018).
¶ 7 Paul made contradictory or unclear allegations about his authority to act as successor trustee. On the one hand, Paul alleged However, in subsequent paragraphs, Paul seemed to be well aware that Norma had executed the 2010 Second Restatement and removed him as a potential successor trustee, when he alleged, Paul's contradictions or lack of clarity continued with allegations that...
To continue reading
Request your trial