Estate of Hoover, In re
| Decision Date | 04 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2581,86-2581 |
| Citation | 112 Ill.Dec. 382,160 Ill.App.3d 964,513 N.E.2d 991 |
| Parties | , 112 Ill.Dec. 382 In re ESTATE OF H. Earl HOOVER (Robert C. Hoover, Catherine Hoover Voorsanger, Holly Hoover deMontmarin, Robert C. Hoover II, John S. Hoover and Whitney S. Hoover, a minor by her parents and natural guardians Robert C. Hoover and Cecilia Hoover, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Marian U. HOOVER, Robert L. Foote, H. Earl Hoover II, John C. Hoover, Gordon E. Hoover, Phyllis P. Hoover, Wendy Hoover Brophy, Diana Hoover, Nancy P. Hoover, Courtney Hoover, Elizabeth Hoover, Michael Leppan, Ray Shoneman, Arlene Jensen, Maxie Perryman, Ethel Perryman and Berta Sonderling, Defendants-Appellees). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Robert A. Holstein, Richard S. Schiffrin, Holstein, Mack & Dupree, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Michael W. Coffield, John D. English, Donna M. Adler, Coffield, Ungaretti, Harris & Slavin, Chicago, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiffs appeal from an order dismissing with prejudice three counts of their six-count complaint against defendants alleging intentional interference with expectancies under a will. Plaintiffs contend that the order of dismissal was improper. We affirm.
This case involves the estate of H. Earl Hoover, who died testate on November 13, 1985. His will and eight codicils were admitted to probate on November 18, 1985. Plaintiffs were beneficiaries under the will and the first through third codicils; they were partially disinherited under the fourth and fifth codicils and totally disinherited under the sixth through eighth codicils.
In their six-count complaint filed on April 30, 1986, plaintiffs alleged that defendants intentionally interfered with their expectancies under the will and the first three codicils (Counts I, II and III), that defendants exercised undue influence over the testator resulting in the execution of the fourth through eighth codicils (Count IV), that testator lacked testamentary capacity to execute the fourth through the eighth codicils (Count V) and that in his sixth codicil, testator revoked his will (Count VI). Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants moved to strike all six counts of plaintiffs' complaint.
In an order entered on August 21, 1986, the circuit court dismissed with prejudice Counts I, II, III and VI, dismissed with leave to amend Count IV and denied the motion to dismiss as to Count V. Plaintiffs appeal only from the dismissal of Counts I, II and III.
Illinois recognizes the tort of intentional interference with an expectancy under a will. (Nemeth v. Banhalmi (1981), 99 Ill.App.3d 493, 55 Ill.Dec. 14, 425 N.E.2d 1187.) To recover on this theory, plaintiff must prove the existence of his expectancy; that the defendant interfered with his expectancy; that the interference involved conduct that is tortious in itself such as fraud, duress or undue influence; that there is a reasonable certainty that the expectancy would have been realized but for defendant's interference; and damages. 99 Ill.App.3d 493, 499, 55 Ill.Dec. 14, 425 N.E.2d 1187.
The tort action will not lie, however, where the remedy of a will contest is available and would provide the injured party with adequate relief. (Robinson v. First State Bank of Monticello (1983), 97 Ill.2d 174, 185, 73 Ill.Dec. 428, 454 N.E.2d 288; De Witt v. Duce (Fla.1981), 408 So.2d 216; Axe v. Wilson (1939), 150 Kan. 794, 96 P.2d 880; Nemeth v. Banhalmi (1984), 125 Ill.App.3d 938, 956-58, 81 Ill.Dec. 175, 466 N.E.2d 977 (by implication); In re Estate of Knowlson (1987), 154 Ill.App.3d 249, 252-54, 107 Ill.Dec. 364, 507 N.E.2d 28 (by implication).) For purposes of determining the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Firestone v. Galbreath
... ... Phillips (hereinafter the "Bricker defendants") and the accounting firm of Bolon, Hart & Buehler, Inc. Rebecca Cummins, executrix of the estate of David Cummins, was substituted as a party for Mr. Cummins by an order filed on May 8, 1990. The other eight Firestone grandchildren were named as ... 848 (D.Colo.1951), aff'd, 201 F.2d 528 (10th Cir.1953). See also McMullin v. Borgers, 761 S.W.2d 718 (Mo. App.1988); In re Estate of Hoover, 160 Ill. App.3d 964, 112 Ill.Dec. 382, 513 N.E.2d 991 (1987); Griffin v. Baucom, 74 N.C.App. 282, 328 S.E.2d 38 (1985); Robinson v. First State ... ...
-
Estate of Roeseler, In re
...contest is available and would provide an adequate remedy to the petitioner, no tort action will lie. In re Estate of Hoover, 160 Ill.App.3d 964, 112 Ill.Dec. 382, 513 N.E.2d 991 (1987). However, if no adequate remedy is available through probate proceedings, a tort action is permissible. K......
-
In re Estate of Ellis
... ... Hoover, 160 Ill.App.3d 964, 966, 112 Ill.Dec. 382, 513 N.E.2d 991 (1987) (same) ... This court noted in Robinson that the public policy underlying the enactment of section 8-1 is "an attempt to make the administration of an estate as orderly as possible because of the gravity of the ... ...
-
Roll v. Edwards
... ... In her April 2002 will, Judith bequeathed a number of valuable heirlooms to Stephanie, 156 Ohio App.3d 231 and the remainder of her estate in equal shares to Stephanie and Robert. In this will, Judith disinherits her surviving spouse, Earl, without a specific disinheritance clause ... 848, affirmed (C.A.10, 1953), 201 F.2d 528. See, also, McMullin v. Borgers (Mo.App.1988), 761 S.W.2d 718; In re Estate of Hoover (1987), 160 Ill.App.3d 964, 112 Ill.Dec. 382, 513 N.E.2d 991; Griffin v. Baucom (1985), 74 N.C.App. 282, 328 S.E.2d 38; Robinson v. First State Bank ... ...
-
Tortious Interference With Inheritance
...F.2d 528 (10th Cir. 1953). [4]Id. [5]Id. at 850. [6]McMullin v. Borgers, 761 S.W.2d 718, 720 (Mo.App. 1988). [7]In re Estate of Hoover, 513 N.E.2d 991 (Ill.App. 1987). [8]Milton v. Sackett, 671 N.E.2d 160 (Ind.App. 1996). [9]See Marmai, "Tortious Interference with Inheritance: Primary Remed......