Page 26 - Sharp-Hundley 2012
P. 26

appoint  an  investigating  receiver  in  citation  proceedings  because  such  a  receiver  could  be
        appointed in garnishment proceedings.   See 735 ILCS 5/12-718.  The court further relied upon the
        “necessary and equitable” powers applicable under that provision in garnishment proceedings, and the
        appellate  panel  affirmed  on  that  point.  “[T]he  trial  court  did  not  abuse  its  discretion  in  appointing  a
        receiver to make inquiries of Freed, DDL and third parties about income and assets and to collect any
        indebtedness due to the Bank and to take possession, sell or otherwise dispose of any other property”,
        the Freed panel said.

             The guardianship case was In re Estate of Denten, 2012 IL App (2d) 110814.  There a bank had
        instituted  foreclosure  proceedings  on  one  of  the  ward’s  properties  when  a  guardian  was  appointed  to
        manage her affairs, including representation in the foreclosure case.  The foreclosure case proceeded to
        judgment and sale, which resulted in a $4,646,360 deficiency judgment.  The bank recorded the judgment
        against the ward’s other real estate and served a citation in an attempt to perfect a lien against personal
        property under § 2-1402(m) and related case law.

             Attorneys for the estate resisted the bank’s attempt to be treated as a “secured” creditor, arguing that
        guardianship estate assets are immune under the in custodia legis (in custody of the law) doctrine.  The
        appellate court rejected that argument and ruled that the bank became entitled to secured creditor
        treatment  as  to  realty  upon  recording  of  the  deficiency  judgment  and  as  to  personalty  upon
        service of the citation upon the ward and the guardian.

             In so ruling, the panel noted that the Probate Act says the Civil Practice Law (of which the citation
        statute is a part) applies in probate proceedings (755 ILCS 5/1-6).

                                Having  found  that  the  bank  was  entitled  to  treatment  as  a  secured  creditor,  the
                           panel next moved to the question whether there was any basis for avoiding the general
                           rule that secured creditors have priority.  The estate’s response on this issue centered
                           on an argument that the priority scheme which applies in decedent estates (755 ILCS
                           5/18-10,  5/18-13)  should  apply  in  guardianship  estates  and  provide  that
                           “administrative” claims are paid first.  This dispute was not de minimis; at issue were
                           over $200,000 in attorneys’ fees previously approved by the trial court but never
                           paid  by  the  estate.    Noting  a  Supreme  Court  statement  that  “a  guardianship
                           proceeding is not governed by the priority schedule established in” §§ 18-10 and 18-13
                           (Estate of Gebis, 186 Ill.2d 188 (1999)), the appellate panel said the estate was “trying
        to invent a legislative priority scheme which does not exist”.

             The  panel  further  rejected  an  argument  that  755  ILCS  5/18-15,  providing  that
        claims allowed against guardianship estates “shall be paid by the representative as he
        has funds therefor”, entitled the claimants to priority for the previously-allowed claims.
        Other provisions of the Probate Act also were ruled irrelevant to the issue of priority, as
        was the fact that the guardian had recorded a lis pendens against the realty at issue.

             The panel noted the “harsh consequences of this ruling” but said that changes in
        the Probate Act “must occur in this state’s legislature and not in its courtrooms.”

                                                                                                      John\Sharp Thinking\#68.doc

        ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
                                           THE  SHARP  LAW  FIRM,  P.C.

                1115 Harrison, P.O. Box 906, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0246 • Facsimile 618-242-1170 • www.thesharpfirm.com

           Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Problem Finances • Real Estate • Corporate • Commercial Disputes • Creditors’ Rights •
                          Arbitration • Administrative Law • Employment Matters • Estate Planning • Probate • Family Matters

          Terry Sharp: Tsharp@lotsharp.com; John T. Hundley: Jhundley@lotsharp.com; Rebecca L. Reinhardt: Rreinhardt@lotsharp.com;
                                             Bentley J. Bender: Bbender@lotsharp.com

                                                        Advertising Material
   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31