Hoff v. Meirink
| Decision Date | 20 September 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 34406,34406 |
| Citation | 145 N.E.2d 58,12 Ill.2d 108 |
| Parties | Theodore HOFF, Conservator, et al., Appellees, v. Laura MEIRINK, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
James H. Donnewald, Breese, and Dreman & Sterling, Belleville, for appellant.
Craig & Craig, Mt. Vernon, for appellee.
On May 23, 1945, Laura Meirink was adjudged mentally ill by the county court of St. Clair County. On August 8, 1956, the county court of Macoupin County appointed Theodore Hoff as conservator of her person and estate, pursuant to section 113(b) of the Probate Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 3, par. 265(b).) She owned a one-fourth interest in a parcel of real estate, and the court authorized the conservator to sell, at public sale, her interest in the right to drill for and obtain coal, oil, gas and other minerals underlying that land. The sale took place on September 10 and her interest was sold to E. A. Obering. The conservator filed his report of sale on September 17.
On September 18, 1956, the county court of St. Clair County entered an order finding that Laura Meirink had recovered from her mental illness and was capable of managing her own property. The order restored her to all her civil rights. On September 19, 1956, she filed a petition for revocation of the letters of conservatorship in the county court of Macoupin County, pursuant to section 128 of the Probate Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 3, par. 280). On October 23, 1956, before ruling on the petition for revocation, the county court of Macoupin County entered an order approving the report of sale filed on September 17, 1956. Immediately thereafter it entered an order revoking the letters of conservatorship. Laura Meirink's motion to vacate the order approving the report of sale was denied on November 21, 1956, and she appeals directly to this court. A freehold is involved. Cf. Peters v. Peters, 405 Ill. 507, 91 N.E.2d 438, with Anderson v. Anderson, 338 Ill. 309, 170 N.E. 212. See Barned v. Michael, 392 Ill. 130, 63 N.E.2d 858.
She attacks the order approving the report of sale on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to enter such an order after her restoration. She contends that section 280 of the Probate Act required the county court of Macoupin County to revoke Hoff's letters of conservatorship, and that after her restoration that section limited the jurisdiction of the court to proceedings looking toward the settlement of the conservator's accounts and the restoration of the property to the ward. Obering, the purchaser at the sale, maintains that restoration to competency does not ipso facto terminate the conservatorship, pointing out that sections 129 and 130 of the Probate Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 3, pars. 281, 282), require the restored ward to file a petition to revoke the letters of conservatorship and to give notice to the conservator and any other interested party, and also provide for a hearing before the order of revocation is entered. In addition, he directs attention to section 312 of the Probate Act, which provides that the office of the conservator terminates (1) when the ward dies, (2) when the letters of the conservator are revoked and (3) when the conservator dies. Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 3, par. 466.
While it is clear that a restoration to competency does not ipso facto terminate the office of the conservator, it by no means follows that the probate court can continue to exercise its supervisory power over the property of the ward after the ward has been restored to competency and until the conservator's office terminates. Indeed, serious constitutional questions would be presented by a statute that provided for the exercise of supervisory power after the ward's disability had been removed. We find no such provision in the Probate Act.
The provisions for a petition and for notice and hearing prior to revocation of letters of conservatorship look toward a settlement of the personal rights and liabilities of the parties; they can not reasonably be construed to authorize continued State interference with the property rights of the restored ward. Cf. People ex rel. Smith v. County Court of Fremont County, 106 Colo. 95, 102 P.2d 476, 128 A.L.R. 1382; In re Hires' Estate, 309 Ill.App. 566, 568, 33 N.E.2d 652. In the case before us it was the order approving the sale that deprived the ward of her property. Until that time there was no sale and even the highest bid 'is a mere offer to buy.' Ehrgott v. Seaborn, 363 Ill. 292, 295, 2 N.E.2d 99, 100. The court was without authority to approve the sale after the fact of restoration had been brought to its attention.
The orders of the circuit court of Macoupin County approving the report of sale and denying plaintiff's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.H. v. Ada S. Mckinley Community Services
...removed.'" In re Estate of Wellman, 174 Ill.2d 335, 346, 220 Ill. Dec. 360, 673 N.E.2d 272, 277 (1996), quoting Hoff v. Meirink, 12 Ill.2d 108, 111, 145 N.E.2d 58, 59 (1957.) The case of In re Estate of Wellman involved the rights of an individual who had been found to be disabled, but late......
-
Estate of Wellman, In re
...order which the court deems appropriate and in the interests of the ward." 755 ILCS 5/11a-21(c) (West 1992). In Hoff v. Meirink, 12 Ill.2d 108, 111, 145 N.E.2d 58 (1957), this court "While it is clear that a restoration to competency does not ipso facto terminate the office of the conservat......
-
Hayden's Estate, Matter of
... ... [105 Ill.App.3d 65] Hoff v. Meirink (1957), 12 Ill.2d 108, 145 N.E.2d 58, also lends some support for our conclusion that Geppert lacked standing following revocation of the ... ...
-
Logsdon v. Nolen
...(Ch. 3, Ill.Rev.Stat.). Neither the decrees of 1962, nor the decree now reviewed, served to so restore him. Relying upon Hoff v. Meirink, 12 Ill.2d 108, 145 N.E.2d 58, plaintiff argues that the finding in the decree of November 1962 compels the court to revoke the letters of conservatorship......