The Docket - January 2024

THE

DOCKET The Official Publication of the Lake County Bar Association • Vol. 31 No. 1 • January 2024

WE SEE A LOT OF LAUGHS IN YOUR FUTURE!

2024 GRIDIRON

MARCH 8 & 9 • GORTON COMMUNITY CENTER

CONFERENCE ROOM For meetings only. Seats 16 – 20 comfortably During business hours (8 am – 5 pm) • Member- Free • Non-Member $150/1st hour. $50/hour after • Non-Member, Not-for-Profit: $25/hour

2024 LCBA OFFICE RENTAL PRICING

After Hours (5 pm – 9 pm) • Member - $25 per hour • Non-Member – Not Available • Non-Member, Not-for-Profit: $50 per hour

MEMBER CENTER “The Bar” Accommodates up to 100 people During business hours (8 am – 5 pm) Members (add $25/hour for after hour events) • Meeting only (individual or group, no food or beverages served: Free • Self-Service reception or party (provide own alcoholic beverages): $50 per hour • Hosted beer & wine reception or party (beer & wine provided by Association): $250/ 1st hour, $50/hour after Non-Members: (add $50/hour for after hour events) • Meeting only (individual or group, no food or beverages served): $50 per hour • Self-Service reception or party (provide own alcoholic beverages and food): $300/ 1st hour, $50/hour after • Hosted beer & wine reception or party – Not Available Non-Member, Not-for-Profit: (add $25/hour for after hour events) • Meeting only (individual or group, no food or beverages served): $25 per hour • Self-Service reception or party (provide own alcoholic beverages and food): $150/1st hour, $25/hour after • Hosted beer & wine reception or party – Not Available Association Committee Meetings (Conference Room or Member Center) Without beer & Wine - Free With Hosted Beer & Wine - $150 flat fee (for 5 – 15 people), $200 (over 15 people) Room rentals are based on availability. Rentals include use of A/V already in room (phone, TV, Speaker. WIFI).

All rentals include free parking in our large, well-lit, 45 vehicle parking lot adjacent to the LCBA building.

Contact the LCBA Office at 847-244-3143 or info@lakebar.org

Contents THE DOCKET • Vol. 31 • No. 1 • January 2024

FEATURES 10 Positively Reasonable Man Street

BY HON. CHARLES J. JOHNSON AND VICTORIA FRANCES DEKOKER

14 Am I Too Late? Navigating Will and Trust Contest Limitations Periods

A publication of the

BY JEFFREY P. O’KELLEY

300 Grand Avenue, Suite A Waukegan, Illinois 60085 (847) 244-3143 • Fax: (847) 244-8259 www.lakebar.org • info@lakebar.org THE DOCKET EDITORIAL BOARD Jeffrey A. Berman,Co-Editor Hon. Charles D. Johnson,Co-Editor Jennifer C. Beeler Kevin Berrill Hon. Bolling W. Haxall Hon. Daniel L. Jasica Hon. Christopher M. Kennedy Jennifer Luczkowiak Kevin K. McCormick Shyama Parikh Stephen J. Rice Neal A. Simon Hon. ­­­James K. Simonian Rebecca J. Whitcombe Alex Zagor STAFF Greg Weider Executive Director

20 Reviews: What Are Critics Saying About Their Sneak Peak at this Year’s Upcoming Gridiron Show?

BY GENEPOOL SHALLOWS

COLUMNS 2 President’s Page Happy New Year!

BY KATHARINE HATCH, PRESIDENT

4 The Chief Judge’s Page A Few Small Changes

BY CHIEF JUDGE DANIEL B. SHANES

6 Bar Foundation Battle of the Bands for Two Great Causes

BY JOANN FRATIANI, PRESIDENT

8 Veterans History Project Remarks

HON. MICHAEL J. FUSZ (RET.)

22 Lake County Bar Foundation Minutes October 17, 2023 24 Board of Directors’ Meeting Minutes November 16, 2023

BY JEFFREY BERMAN, SECRETARY

26 In the Director’s Chair A Hammer or an Anvil

BY GREG WEIDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

FURTHER INFORMATION IFC Office Rental Pricing 3 Family Law Seminar 5 LCBF 7 Battle of the LCBA Bands 21 Gridiron 25 Calendar of Events 26 Lawyer Referral Service 28 Monthly Committee Meetings BC Member Reception Sponsorship Opportunities

Jose Gonzalez Assistant Executive Director Nancy Rodriguez Receptionist

AD SIZE 1/8 Page 1/4 Page 1/2 Page Full Page Inside Front or Inside Back Cover

Back Cover

ONE ISSUE

6 ISSUES

12 ISSUES

$85 $80 $75 $145 $135 $125 $195 $185 $175 $325 $295 $275 $650 per issue $800 per issue

Classified Advertising

Standard $1.75 per word (Rate for LCBA Members) Text $2.75 per word (Rate for Non-Members) Bold $3.50 per word (Rate for LCBA Members) Text $4.50 per word (Rate for Non-Members) Classified Advertisement may contain as many words, numbers, symbols and boldface type.

Advertising Rates To place an ad or for information on advertising rates, call (847) 244-3143. Submission deadline: first day of month preceding the month of publication. All submissions must be made in electronic format (high resolution PDF or JPG format at a resolution of 300 pixels per inch or more.) See www.lakebar.org/page/Docket_Advertising The Docket is the official publication of the Lake County Bar Association, 300 Grand Avenue, Suite A, Waukegan, Illinois 60085 (847) 2443143, and is published monthly. Subscriptions for non-members are $45.00 per year.

Reproduction in whole or part without permission is prohibited. The opinions and positions stated in signed material are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Association or its members.

All submitted manuscripts are considered by the Editorial Board. All letters to the editor and articles are subject to editing. Publications of advertisements is not to be considered as an endorsement of any product or service advertised unless otherwise stated.

The

Happy New Year!

H

appy New Year! If one thing holds true 2024 will be over in a blink, so the timeless value of being present cannot be overstated. As we kick off a new year and establish

Katharine Hatch President Danny Hodgkinson First Vice President Kevin Berrill Second Vice President Richard Gellersted Treasurer Jeffrey Berman Secretary Tara Devine Immediate Past President Hon. Jacquelyn Melius Craig Mandell Sarah Raisch Jeffrey O’Kelly Jeremy Harter Judy Maldonado Hon. Bolling Haxall

2

The Docket

new goals, I am inviting you to join me in supporting a cause that is close to our hearts – The Lake County Bar Foundation. Our Foundation plays a crucial role in promoting legal education, awarding sponsorships, and supporting members of our legal community facing unexpected challenges. To support these efforts, the Lake County Bar Foundation is hosting a Battle of the Bands fundraiser, featuring live music, and I am urging you to attend, donate, and actively participate by getting your band back together for a live performance.

The event is February 8, 2024, starting at 6:00 p.m. at the 28 Mile Distillery in Highwood, Illinois.

This fundraiser promises to be an evening filled with camaraderie, inspiration, and an opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the lives of those within

President’s Page

our legal community who may need assistance. The Foundation awards grants each fiscal quarter to local non-profit agencies with an affiliation to the legal community. Membership participation demonstrates your commitment to our shared goals and values, and donating directly contributes to the Foundation’s ability to provide support where it is needed most. The event is also a great occasion to connect with fellow members, forge new professional relationships, and strengthen the

BY KATHARINE HATCH PRESIDENT bonds within our legal community.

The Lake County Bar Association is a dynamic force for positive change, and your support is crucial in helping the foundation realize its vision. Your endorsement can inspire others to join the Lake County Bar Association and, in turn, support the Foundation. Let’s make this year a standout year for the Lake County Bar Association and Foundation. And never forget that your passion and dedication are the driving force behind our success.

T F S

M

2024 Family Law Seminar April 11- April 13, 2024 Napa, California The Meritage Resort & Spa

Thursday, April 11, 2024 - Welcome Reception Friday, April 12, 2024 - 4 hours of CLE & Activity Saturday, April 13, 2024 - 4 Hours of CLE & Departure

More information coming soon $399 LCBA Member

January 2024

3

A Few Small Changes

H

appy New Year! As I write this, it is still shortly after Thanksgiving, and as I look forward with excitement (and perhaps a little trepidation?) to serving as Chief Judge of our Circuit, I am filled with gratitude for so many to whom so much thanks are due.

To my fellow Circuit Judges, I am grateful for their unanimous support in choosing me to lead our Circuit Court at this time. I particularly thank outgoing Chief Judge Mark Levitt (who is outgoing in so many ways) for his leadership, friendship, and support as we head into 2024.

The 41 judges of our Circuit are fortunate to be supported by so many remarkable professionals in fulfilling our mission to provide a fair and efficient system of justice, committed to excellence, fostering public trust, understanding and confidence. Did you know

4

The Docket

that our Circuit Court has close to 300 employees supporting our judges and judicial operations? From our wonderful court interpreters to probation officers to IT to Kids Korner and to our many other judicial operations professionals, the people of Lake County are well served.

Having spent nearly every day of the past 30 years in our courtrooms, I am continually grateful to you, our bar. The attorneys who practice in Lake County, and the Lake County Bar Association as a whole, are shining examples of dedication and collaboration as we together strive for excellence in serving our community. The LCBA is a vital part of our community—and I don’t just say that as a former LCBA Secretary, member of our Board of Directors, and even past editor of The Docket 20-odd years ago (as Steve Rice reminded me recently!). Thank you

The

Chief Judge’s Page for all you do.

Across those decades I have been blessed by the friendship of so many members of our courthouse community, both lawyers and justice partners alike.

Speaking of Kids Korner, many of you knew my mother, a long-time Kids Korner volunteer until her untimely passing this past spring. Thank you too to all who provided so much support to me and my family during those difficult times.

When new chief judges begin their terms, attorneys wonder what changes the new chief judge will make in judicial assignments. Will my usual judge change?

What will a new judge expect? (In case you’re wondering, the judges also wonder about changes in their assignments with every new chief judge!)

Effective January 1, Judge Levitt will return to the Felony Division in

BY CHIEF JUDGE DANIEL B. SHANES courtroom 712 with the call previously presided over

by Judge Strickland. Judge Strickland (who will remain in courtroom 812) will preside over my former docket, and Judge Lombardo will move to courtroom 612 as felony back-up judge.

2023 was a year of change for our judiciary, including welcoming six new judges to our bench.

Of course, each time a new judge joins the bench it results in some changes in judicial assignments. In addition, the implementation of the Pretrial Fairness and SAFE-T Acts (commonly referred to as the new nobond laws) resulted in the creation of an entirely new Detention Court docket and additional judges consequently moving around.

Because many of our judges began new assignments recently, further wholesale moves do not seem needed or appropriate at this time.

Other than Judge Levitt returning to the Felony Division, I do not anticipate further judicial reassignments in the near future.

At this time of global turmoil, I look around our community and see not only the challenges we face but also so many remarkable resources—and much beauty. We are blessed to live and work here, in the United States and in Lake

County, at this time in our history. Even in the darkest times, and perhaps particularly then, it only takes a little light to brighten the world. Each of us can be that light.

From my family to yours, I hope you had a wonderful holiday season and I look forward to working together to continue serving our community in the coming year.

Helping people obtain the benefits that are rightfully theirs.

Do you have a client who cannot work and is struggling to obtain Social Security Disability benefits?

Has your client already been turned down?

SSD cases can be time-consuming and confusing, with complex requirements and deadlines.

With nearly 25 years of experience, The Good Law Group has won cases at all levels of the claims process, including cases originally declined by the Social Security Administration.

Get help today!

847-577-4476 | 800-419-7606 thegoodlawgroup.com • info@TheGoodLawGroup.com 209 W. Madison Street, Suite 1, Waukegan, IL 60085

Some things can’t be measured on a balance sheet.

For more than 130 years, we’ve been meeting our clients’ financial needs while nurturing a culture of caring and a commitment to invest in the communities we serve. Because people are always the best investments.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Kristen Carey, Managing Director Guardianship Services 50 South La Salle Street, B-6 Chicago, Illinois 60603 kc210@ntrs.com; 312-557-3454 northerntrust.com

Northern Trust was a proud sponsor of the Lake County Bar Association’s Trust and Estates Seminar.

INVESTING | BANKING | TRUST & ESTATE SERVICES | WEALTH PLANNING | FAMILY OFFICE

January 2024

5

Battle of the Bands for Two Great Causes

I

can’t believe that 2024 is upon us already! I hope your New Year is off to a great start. This year, the Lake County Bar Foundation will hold a fundraiser entitled “The Battle of the Bands.” This Event repeats the same format as our similar event held in 2023 and will feature bands comprised of Judges and attorneys. The 2024 Event will take place on February 8, 2024, at the 28 Mile Distilling Company in Highwood, Illinois.

The Bar Foundation has

designated two beneficiaries of the funds raised in the 2024 event – A Safe Place and the North Suburban Legal Aid Clinic.

A Safe Place is an organization in Lake County that provides services exclusively to victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. They assist victims with their lives after violence and they also offer programs to prevent future abuse. A Safe Place also seeks to educate the citizens of Lake County of the causes and responses

Contact the LCBA office for pricing.

847-244-3143

6

The Docket

BY JOANN FRATIANNI PRESIDENT to domestic violence and human trafficking to end the cycle of violence in the community. They provide their services free of charge to those in need of assistance by offering, among other things, emergency shelter, a safe environment for court ordered supervision to occur and assistance with Courthouse advocacy.

A Safe Place is a 501(c)(3) Organization which is listed under Lake County Crisis Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Domestic Violence, Inc. The North Suburban Legal Aid Center (NSLAC) provides free legal service in Lake County and Cook County to low-income individuals in the areas of domestic violence, housing, and immigration.

Its mission is to provide accessible, quality, equitable, free legal services, and to give low-income, at-risk

community members access to justice and the opportunity to live productive and secure lives. They are committed to providing thorough and compassionate representation, and to treating all clients equitably and respectfully.

The NSLAC services cases in the 19th Judicial Circuit as well as Cook County Circuit Court settings in the areas of domestic violence and housing matters.

They also provide services in the area of Immigration at the Executive Office of Immigration Review in Chicago. The NSSLAC is a 501(c)(3) public charity and is listed as a non-forprofit corporation.

The Lake County Bar Foundation is proud to hold this event once again in 2024. We hope you will join us in enjoying a fun night along with supporting some great organizations.

E H T F LE O

S D N A B A B

LC

T T A B 024

2

February 8, 2024

6 PM

Benefiting:

454 SHERIDAN RD. HIGHWOOD, IL 60040

TICKETS

$4O IN ADVANCE $5O AT THE DOOR

To purchase your ticket in advance go to www.lakebar.org/events or call 847-244-3143

January 2024

7

Remarks by Hon. Michael Fusz, ret., for the 2023 Veterans History Project The Docket is pleased to provide a copy of the remarks made by Hon. Michael J. Fusz (Ret.) to the assembled veterans at the 2023 Veterans History Project event.

MILITARY VETERANS Each of you is forever a member of what is becoming a rare and unique fraternity: fewer than 7% of our fellow citizens serve or have served in the United States Armed Forces.

Whatever you did and wherever you served, whether you manned a rifle on the frontline, manned a desk or drove a truck, loaded supplies or manned a checkpoint, your sacrifices and contributions were important and are appreciated. Like millions of other Americans before you, you did what your country asked of you, and I thank you on behalf of a grateful nation.

For the rest of your lives, you can proudly say “I’m a military veteran, I served in the Armed Forces of the United States.”

And that itself carries an awful lot of credibility with a lot of people.

We are all part of the American team, no matter what part we play. Our country depends on us to

8

The Docket

follow the laws, to make this a better community and country, to teach and to help our fellow citizens, to pick up and carry our share of the load.

Some people don’t understand this—some people never learn this; they only look out for themselves.

While you don’t have to have served in the Armed Forces to know this, everyone who has served in the military knows how important it is to be a reliable member of the team. You carry that sense of responsibility with you, like a badge of honor, forever.

VETERANS DAY Unlike Memorial Day, which is a day specifically intended to honor and remember those who died in the service of our country, Veterans Day is a day when we honor and thank all who served in the military, living and dead—whether in wartime or peace—to ac-

knowledge that their contributions to our national security are appreciated, and to underscore the fact that all those who served have sacrificed and done their duty.

But sometimes, in the hustle and bustle of our normal lives, we need to be reminded of our veterans’ sacrifices.

“Courage . . .” according to G.K. Chesterton is “ . . . almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of readiness to die.”

Jose N. Harris, an Army Ranger and Special Forces medic wrote in his book, “Mi Vida: (A Story of Faith, Hope and Love)”: “A Veteran is someone, who at one point in their life, wrote a blank check payable to the United States of America for an amount up to, and including their life.

Regardless of personal or political views, there are too many people in this

country who no longer remember that fact…”

While serving as a judge, I presided over both criminal and civil jury trials. In my remarks to potential jurors (many of whom were nervous and some of whom were reluctant to serve), I always asked if there were any veterans in the group and how long they served.

I then reminded the other potential jurors that compared to the many years of service by our veterans, serving on a jury for several days or a week was a relatively small price to pay for the freedom and the open system of justice that we Americans enjoy.

I also pointed out that more than 25 of our fellow Lake County citizens had been killed in combat operations just since September 11, 2001, and that while we were only asking them to give us a few days or a week of their time, many of our fellow Lake County citizens were

serving in combat operations around the world; I felt that it helped put their own jury service in the proper perspective.

MY FATHER November 11 used to be known as “Armistice Day” to commemorate the end of WW I in Europe.

At our house, it was also known as “Dad’s Birthday.”

My father was born in Chicago on November 11, 1925, to two immigrants from Europe. He only spoke German until he was five years old and as far as I knew, he led a pretty normal life growing up. But when he graduated high school in the middle of WW II, he volunteered to join the Navy at the age of 17. He was sent to Navy Boot Camp at Farragut, Idaho, in the north woods. (Great place to train sailors, right?)

After later being trained as a .50 cal. gunner on a PBM-5 Mariner, a long-range patrol seaplane, my father and his crew were sent to the island of Peleliu near the Philippines after it was secured by the Marines and the Army.

My father was a city kid who had never been on an airplane before and had never been out of the Midwest. But he essentially said, as all of you did: “Put me wherever you need me.” (Be careful what you ask for, right?)

After the war, he came back to Chicago, married my mother, went back to work in the factory, raised four children, worked for Schwinn Bicycles for 48 years and after a long life (49 years in the only

house he ever owned), he passed away in 2009.

But… He never really talked about his Navy service; why he joined, what he did in the Navy or his experiences during his 3 years of active duty.

As a result, all we know about his time in the Navy, mostly from his photos and memorabilia, is that he was a member of Combat Air Crew 30 A, that he was trained at NAS Pensacola and NAS Banana River, Florida, was sent to the South Pacific, and was discharged in 1946.

I think he was typical of a lot of WW II veterans: he didn’t see combat; he just served and went where they told him, did what they told him to do, and never saw himself as a hero.

He was part of the great American war effort, one of millions of citizens who served, who did what they were asked to do, like each of you did.

But I’ll always regret the fact that he never really had a chance to tell us about his part in the war effort. His part in American history is now lost forever.

“WHY AM I TELLING YOU THIS?” Because your own military service, your sacrifices and your contributions, whatever you did in the military, is an important part of not only of YOUR personal history, but of AMERICA’S HISTORY. But your histories are not yet completely written. To the extent that today you can pass on to future generations what you did and what you

have learned from your service, your own stories and America’s history will be even better.

The Veterans History Project, established by an Act of Congress, is intended to make sure the story of your contributions and sacrifices are preserved before they are lost forever.

For some of you, it may not be easy to tell these stories, but it’s important that future generations know about the sacrifices that you and your comrades made in the service of our country.

But . . . we can’t forget those who didn’t make it home: “Greater Love Hath No Man Than This: That A Man Lay Down His Life for His Friends” This quote from the Bible (John 15:13) could be inscribed over the graves of any of the more than 1 million Americans who have lost their lives serving in the Armed Forces of the United States since the American Revolution.

It is, in fact, the inscription on the tombstone of the son of a friend of mine, CPT Shane R.M. Mahaffee, U.S. Army, of Gurnee, Illinois.

Shane, who practiced as a lawyer here in Waukegan, was called back into active duty from the Inactive Ready Reserve in 2006. After refresher training at Ft. Jackson, he was sent to Iraq and was mortally wounded only weeks after arriving when his convoy was hit by an IED. He died in an Amer-

ican military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, on May 15, 2006. He left behind his wife, two young children and his parents and siblings and is now buried in Ascension Cemetery in Libertyville.

He and every other American, (Geoffrey Morris, Wesley Wells, among others, some of whom have family members here today), who were killed serving in our Armed Forces over the years were each unique individuals.

Each was a person with a loving family and friends, with a history, whose bright and unlimited future was cut short when they were killed serving our country.

Every one of them went where our country, WHERE WE sent them.

They did what they were asked to do, but they paid for it with their lives. Every one of them is a true American hero.

Their deaths are most painfully experienced by the Gold Star families and friends they left behind.

Most of us will never truly understand the depths of their losses but we can offer our support and pledge to remember and honor their fallen heroes.

We help to ensure that their sacrifices are not forgotten by placing flags and wreaths at their graves on Memorial Day, by aiding and assisting their families and by telling their stories, as perhaps you will today.

We also honor the fallen when we fulfill our sacred obligation to make sure that the physical, continued on page 25

January 2024

9

Positively Reasonable Man Street You say I let you down, you know it’s not like that If you’re so hurt, why then don’t you show it? 1

L

BY HON. CHARLES D. JOHNSON AND VICTORIA FRANCES DEKOKER

et’s start with an assumption: One of your faithful authors is a fairly large guy, and still in reasonably decent shape despite fast-advancing age and years of physical mismanagement. Therefore, if the author in question punches you in the nose, you will be in pain, and perhaps somewhat disfigured.2 Based on these facts, the incorrigible author could reasonably be charged with Battery under 720 ILCS 5/123(1), which states in relevant part: 12

A person commits battery if he or she knowingly without legal justification by any means (1) causes bodily harm to an individual…3 This probably is one of the first concepts that we all learned in Criminal Law class. However, the second part of the subject statHon. Charles D. ute appears to have given Johnson courts some degree of has been an trouble through the years.

Associate Defining what is known as Judge for 1 2 3

Dylan, Bob; Positively 4th Street; Columbia, 1965.

For the record, I have never punched anyone in anger in my entire life. CDJ. 720 ILCS 5/12-3 (1).

10 The Docket

the 19th Judicial Circuit since 2005. He is currently assigned to the Criminal Division.

Insulting or Provoking Nature Battery, it provides that a person also commits battery if: …(h)e or she knowingly without legal justification by any means (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.4 Specifically, the problem arises over the question of whether the victim needs to actually be insulted or provoked. So, let’s assume an alternative set of facts: if Victoria F. your second author, youngDekoker is er, nicer and in better shape a secthan author #1, bumps into ond-year you on a crowded subway, law stuand you’re not offended… dent at the University does it even matter? of Illinois According to the Illinois Chicago Supreme Court’s recent School of Law. She has BAs holding in People v. Davidin Cinema and Creative Writing from the University of Southern California.

4 720 ILCS5/12-3 (2).

son,5 no – it really doesn’t.6 When it comes to physical contact that is of an insulting or provoking nature, the impact on the victim isn’t the point. It’s the nature of the contact that makes a difference.

As a tort, battery has always been an outlet for expressing personal affront.7 Battery has been defined consistently as “unwanted physical contact,”8 including everything from a punch on the nose to “the bumptious grapplings of an unwelcome swain.”9 There is a difference between tort law and criminal law, though. Tort law exists to provide a vehicle for individual retribution, while criminal law is designed to protect the people from conduct that threatens the public peace.

The court hearing the first criminal battery case in the United States, litigated all the way back in 1784, held that striking an ambassador’s cane was exactly the kind of “bumptious grappling” that should be prohibited because it “too often induce[s] dwelling, and terminate[s] in murder.”10 More than two hundred years later, lawmakers have kept Insulting and Provoking Nature battery on the books for that very reason: to deter behavior that could escalate into more serious violence.

Before Davidson, Illinois courts were not entirely consistent on whether the state had to establish that the victim was truly insulted or provoked by the conduct in question. In People v Dunker,11 the defendant was accused of poking a teacher in the chest during an argument about the defendant’s child’s school performance.

At trial, the teacher was asked12 if she was “insulted or provoked into a fight.” She said she was not, but that she was crying, was shocked by the defendant’s behavior, and believed it was uncalled for. The Court found that these facts were sufficient for the trier of fact to conclude that

the teacher was insulted or provoked. The Court based its decision largely on a credibility determination, but impliedly found that the context of the behavior provided sufficient proof of the necessary elements. This context analysis would come to be relevant in a number of subsequent opinions.

In People v d’ Avis,13 the defendant, a physician, was charged with Insulting or Provoking Nature Battery for masturbating while performing a rectal exam on a patient. The Court found that, while a standard rectal exam may not be insulting or provoking, the context (i.e., the defendant’s simultaneous self-manipulation) was enough to satisfy the statute.

Context also was relevant in People v Peck,14 where the Defendant was charged with Battery for spitting on a police officer. The Peck Court cited to d’Avis, finding that an “otherwise noninsulting act became an insulting or provoking contact when viewed in context.”15 The opinion went on to say that “(a)lthough we can envision contexts in which a defendant’s spitting might not constitute insulting or provoking behavior…”16 the circumstances were such that the conviction was appropriate.

Again, context was the deciding factor in People v DeRosario,17 in which the male Defendant was convicted of Battery for having sat behind the female complaining witness in a smoking lounge, with his knees touching her back and hip. The Court found it relevant that the two had been friendly with one another, but the relationship had deteriorated, that the smoking lounge was sparsely populated at the time of the incident, and that the Defendant could have found other places to sit other than directly behind the complainant. This bumptious grappling becomes relevant in the evolution of the case law on this subject later.

Similar results were found in People v Wrencher18 (spitting blood) and People v Fultz19 (pushing a police officer). In each of these cases the Court used the context of the action, and more specifically the complainant’s reaction to the Defendant’s act, even without specific

Battery has always been defined consistently as “unwanted physical contact,” including everything from a punch on the nose to “the bumptious grapplings of an unwelcome swain.”

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

People v. Davidson, 2023 IL 127538.

Id. at ¶16.

Cole v. Turner, 6 Mod.Rep. 149, 90 Eng.Rep. 958 (Nisi Prius 1704) (“the least touching of another in anger is a battery …. If any of them use violence against the other … it is a battery”).

Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on The Law of Torts § 9, at 41 (5th Ed. 1984).

Harm or offense required to establish simple battery, Dan B. Dobbs, Paul T. Hayden and Ellen M. Bublick, The Law of Torts § 34 (2d ed.).

Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 U.S. 111.

People v. Dunker, 217 Ill.App.3d 410 (1991).

On cross-examination! As though the State forgot that being insulted or provoked was part of the charge. Or perhaps they accurately predicted the Davidson decision 32 years early.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

People v. d’Avis, 250 Ill.App.3d 649 (1st Dist. 1993). Warning: super creepy fact pattern follows.

People v Peck, 260 Ill. App. 3d, 812.

Id. at 814.

Id. Ed. Note: really?

People v DeRosario, 397 Ill.App.3d 332 (2d Dist. 2009).

People v. Wrencher, 2011 IL App (4th) 080619.

People v Fultz, 2012 IL App (2d) 101101.

January 2024

11

testimony that complainant was insulted or provoked, to determine whether the charge was sustained.

People v Ward,20 a case that extensively discussed the competing appellate positions, is instructive on the subject. In Ward, the defendant was engaged in an argument with a Geneva police officer, when his wife stepped in between the two. The Defendant pushed her out of the way, while telling her to shut up. The police officer charged Ward with Domestic Battery of an insulting or provoking nature, even though the wife said she wasn’t bothered by the contact and did not want to press charges. The State argued at trial that the statute only required that the contact was insulting or provoking, regardless of whether the alleged victim felt so or not. The Second District disagreed, holding that the State was required to prove that the physical contact insulted or provoked the victim, not some third party (i.e., the officer).

In reaching its conclusion, however, the Ward court discussed the case of People v Williams,21 where a defendant was found guilty of insulting or provoking nature battery for having kicked an unconscious person in the head. Clearly the victim could not testify about his reaction to the contact, and even an analysis of the context wouldn’t be helpful if the question is whether the victim likely would have been insulted or provoked. Williams had specifically found that it is the nature of the contact, not the effect on the victim, that governs whether a battery has been committed.22 The Ward court rejected this theory, holding that a case that does not prove the victim was insulted or offended is one based on “pure speculation.”23 Specifically, the Ward court determined that focusing on the nature of the contact precluded a consideration of the context in which the contact occurred.”24 The court reviewed many of the cases discussed above, and came to the conclusion that context was key to determining the nature of the contact, and that without considering context, it was impossible to determine whether the contact was insulting or provoking.25 DeRosario was a key consideration for the Ward court’s analysis, because the court was concerned that without context, otherwise inoffensive conduct would go unpunished. Respectfully, it seems that the courts were struggling to justify their prior analyses, and thereby laying the groundwork for the Davidson decision.

The Defendant in Davidson was a jail detainee who was causing a ruckus. The complaining witness was a correctional officer who was attempting to quell the ruckus.

During the interaction, the Defendant pushed the officer in the chest. At trial on the charge of Aggravated Battery to a Correctional Officer, the officer did not testify that he was insulted or provoked, and furthermore did not testify 20 21 22 23 24 25

12

People v. Ward, 2021 IL App (2d) 190243.

People v Williams, 2021 IL App (2d) 190243.

Id. at ¶ 50.

Ward, 2021 IL App (2d) 190243 at ¶ 67.

Id. at ¶ 52.

Id. at ¶ 65.

The Docket

to any outward reaction to the contact.26 On appeal from his conviction, Davidson argued that there was no evidence that the officer was personally insulted or provoked, and furthermore, not even any context evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that he was insulted or provoked.27 The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that, in the overall context of the situation, the jury could infer that the contact was insulting and provoking.28 On further appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court considered the matter as one of statutory construction, and reviewed the matter de novo.29 Adopting the statutory construction argument of Williams, it held that “use of the noun ‘nature’ after the adjectives ‘insulting’ and ‘provoking’ means that those terms describe the requisite nature of the contact, taking it outside the scope of the victim’s subjective view.”30 The Court believed that if the legislature had intended a trier of fact to focus on the effect of the contact, it would have worded the second section of the statute the same as the first, which describes bodily harm. The legislative choice to phrase the statute in terms of the type of contact, rather than the effect, eliminates any question of actual or subjective results.31 The Court also held that such a construction avoids absurd results, such as a victim who “might not show outward emotion because of stoicism, fear of reprisal, pride, shame, humiliation, or even feelings of guilt or self-loathing,” or an unconscious victim as in Williams.32 Thus, it does not really matter whether a victim is actually insulted or provoked, or whether the context of the contact leads inferentially to a such a subjective conclusion. The Davidson Court held that a plain reading of the statute requires an objective, reasonable person standard to be applied.33 To the extent that previous cases (i.e., Ward, Fultz, Dunker and Wrencher) had held that the State was required to prove that the victim was insulted or provoked, either directly or subjectively, Davidson overruled those cases.34 The central tenet underlying the idea of battery is that everyone has the right to avoid bodily contact with anyone, anytime, anywhere. This right, however, does not supersede everyone else’s right to exist in the same unpredictable world.35 Eliminating the need to struggle over contextual clues for a victim’s real or subjective feelings reconciles these truths, and makes the trier of facts’ job significantly easier. Perhaps the great Bob Dylan could re-release his classic with the lyrics: “If you’re so hurt, wouldn’t a reasonable person show it?” Nah.

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

People v. Davidson, 2021 IL App (5th) 190217-U, ¶ 6.

Id. at ¶ 15.

Id. at ¶ 16.

People v. Davidson, 2023 IL 127538 at ¶ 13.

Id. at ¶ 16.

Id. at ¶ 17.

Id. at ¶ 18.

Id. at ¶ 25.

Id. at ¶¶ 22, 19.

The Law of Torts, supra, at § 34.

OFFICE BUILDINGS NEAR COURTHOUSE FOR SALE Terry Smythe and Jerry Lee have been practicing law together since 1975. They own two buildings, 207 and 211 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Ave., Waukegan, just a block from the Lake County Courthouse. There is a fourteen car parking lot, so off-street parking is not a problem. This could be an ideal office location for a court-oriented law practice.

The 207 building has two offices, a spacious work area, a restroom, and a small kitchenette on the first floor. There is also a spacious office/conference room on the second floor, a work area, and a restroom. The 211 building is a newer building and has three spacious conference rooms, a waiting area, a work area, and two restrooms. There is also a spacious full basement with lots of room for storage. The buildings are linked by a common porch/deck.

The asking price is $350,000.00 for both buildings. We have a current appraisal from Leech & Denoma which values both properties together at $385,000.00. We will consider selling the properties separately.

Contact Terry Smythe at (224)-369-3370 or Jerry Lee at (847) 404-6325.

January 2024

13

Am I Too Late? Navigating Will and Trust Contest Limitations Periods

W

BY JEFFREY P. O’KELLEY

hen is it too late to file a will or trust contest? Is it possible to toll the limitations period? These should be easy questions to answer, but navigating will and trust contest limitations periods can be downright confounding.

Will and trust contests are the backbone of estate and trust litigation, with a long and well-established history, myriad governing statutes and cases, and a wealth of secondary materials outlining exactly where, when and how to proceed. From a procedural standpoint, there should be virtually nothing confusing or uncertain about filing a will or trust contest. And yet, when it comes to figuring out if you are too late to file, the answer is not only unsettled, it has only become more confusing over time.

The heart of the problem lies in a basic question: are will and trust contest limitations periods jurisdictional in nature, such Jeff O’Kelley that they cannot be tolled? The answer is a partner at Lesser Lutrey is surprisingly unclear.

WHAT IS A JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATIONS PERIOD? Understanding the problem first requires understanding what separates a jurisdictional limitations period from other limitations periods. As its name suggests, a jurisdictional limitations period is jurisdictional in nature,

14

The Docket

such that, upon its expiration, it divests a court of jurisdiction and poses an absolute bar to claims.

In other words, a jurisdictional limitations period is a firewall which prevents a court from even considering how or why the limitations period might somehow be tolled, no matter how compelling the argument to toll.1 The usual good faith methods of extending the filing deadline, such as fraudulent concealment or the discovery rule, simply do not apply to a jurisdictional limitations period. In fact, given their unique nature, some cases have gone so far to describe a statutory limitations period as a “jurisdictional statute,” rather than a mere limitations period.2 Put simply, when facing a jurisdictional limitations period, your action is either timely or barred. There is no grey area, no room for debate,

Pasquesi & Howe, LLP in Lake Forest.

He focuses his practice on fiduciary litigation and complex disputes in the field of estates and trusts.

1 See, e.g., In re Estate of Ellis, 236 Ill.2d 45, 50 (2010); Ruffing v. Glissendorf, 41 Ill.2d 412, 416 (1968); In re Estate of Mohr, 357 Ill.App.3d 1011, 1013-14 (1st Dist. 2005).

2 See Mohr, 357 Ill.App.3d at 1014; see also Julia Rackley Perry Mem. Hosp. v. Peters, 81 Ill.App.3d 487, 489 (3rd Dist. 1980).

and no excuses. When the clock runs out, the courtroom doors close tight. Litigator beware.

THE WILL CONTEST LIMITATIONS PERIOD, GENERALLY So what does this mean in the context of a will contest?

Thankfully, there is nothing confusing or unsettled about the will contest limitations period itself.

The time period for filing a will contest is spelled out in black and white by statute, right where you would expect it, in the Illinois Probate Act (“Probate Act”).3 Article VIII of the Probate Act is conspicuously titled “Will Contests,”4 and right at the very top of Article VIII, in the very first section, you will find the limitations period for will contests.

Section 8-1(a) of the Probate Act (“Section 8-1(a)”) governs the will contest limitations period, and it states in relevant part as follows:

answer. A mountain of case law made perfectly clear that the will contest limitations period is jurisdictional.6 For example, in Estate of Ellis, the Illinois Supreme Court squarely addressed this issue and stated absolutely and unequivocally that: This six-month limitation period is jurisdictional and not subject to tolling by fraudulent concealment or any other fact not expressly provided for by the Probate Act...If a challenger to a will fails to initiate a direct proceeding to contest the will within the six-month statutory time period, the validity of the will is established for all purposes.7

A jurisdictional limitations period is a firewall which prevents a court from even considering how or why the limitations period might somehow be tolled, no matter how compelling the argument to toll.

Within 6 months after the admission to probate of a . . . will . . . any interested person may file a petition in the proceeding for the administration of the testator’s estate or, if no proceeding is pending, in the court in which the will as admitted to probate, to contest the validity of the will.5 In other words, the admission of a will to probate triggers a six-month window to file a will contest. Although the time may be short, the deadline is clear.

IS THE WILL CONTEST LIMITATIONS PERIOD JURISDICTIONAL? That was the easy part, though. The challenge arises when a potential client comes to you looking to file a will contest after the limitations period has expired, offering what would otherwise be an air-tight factual basis to toll the six-month limitations period, if only the law would allow them to do so. Figuring out whether they are out of luck or should press forward depends entirely upon whether the will contest limitations period is jurisdictional in nature.

Until recently, this was not a difficult question to 3 4 5

755 ILCS 5/1-1, et seq.

See 755 ILCS 5/8-1, et seq.

755 ILCS 5/8-1(a).

Other cases were similarly clear in describing Section 8-1(a) as a jurisdictional statute, explaining:

The time limit set out in the statute limiting the time in which to file will contests is not a statute of limitations in the ordinary sense but is a jurisdictional statute, for without compliance with the applicable time limit, the trial court loses jurisdiction to hear the will contest.8

This rule was both clearly elucidated and inherently logical, rooted in public policy considerations unique to probate proceedings. In particular: [T]he basic justification for the construction of the statute as one of a limitation on the trial court’s jurisdiction is the necessity to expedite the administration and distribution of estates and to prevent undue delay in the settlement and determination of property interests created by will.9 In sum, controlling authority consistently made clear that the will contest limitations period was not only brief, it was absolute, and failure to timely file was fatal without exception.

6

7 8 9

See, e.g., Mohr, 357 Ill.App.3d 1011; Rackley, 81 Ill.App.3d 487; Storrs v. St. Luke’s Hospital, 180 Ill. 368 (1899); In re Estate of Howell, 373 Ill.App.3d 342 (5th Dist. 2007); Ruffing v. Glissendorf, 31 Ill.2d 412 (1968).

In re Estate of Ellis, 236 Ill.2d 45, 50 (2009).

Mohr, 357 Ill.App.3d at 1014.

Rackley, 81 Ill.App.3d at 490.

January 2024

15

ALONG CAME YOUNG. This line of clear authority took an abrupt left turn with the 2020 decision of In re Estate of Young.10 In Young, a plaintiff filed a will contest within the six-month limitations period, but the will contest was then later dismissed for want of prosecution. The plaintiff thereafter sought to revive the action after the six-month will contest filing window expired, relying upon the statutory one-year refiling period for matters dismissed for want of prosecution.11 The defendants countered by arguing that the plaintiff was, in practical effect, improperly seeking to file a will contest after the close of the jurisdictional sixmonth will contest limitations period, and that the action should be barred as untimely.

Surprisingly, the reviewing court sided with the plaintiff seeking to revive the will contest. In doing so, the reviewing court did not limit its holding to the narrow situation presented, but instead sought to upend the long line of prior authority explicitly identifying Section 8-1(a) as a jurisdictional limitations period.

In particular, the Young court acknowledged that “[f] ormerly, some cases deemed the six-month limitation period jurisdictional and not subject to tolling . . . .”12 However, the Young court then went on to analyze the 2002 Illinois Supreme Court case of Belleville Toyota.13 In doing so, the Young court explained, in relevant part, as follows: The Belleville court noted that, beginning with the 1964 amendments to the judicial article of the 1870 constitution, the legislature’s role in determining the jurisdiction of the circuit court “radically changed.” Thereafter, the circuit court had original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters, and the legislature’s power to define the court’s jurisdiction was limited to the area of administrative review .... As relevant here, the court rejected the pre-1964 rule that “a limitations period contained in a statute that creates a substantive right unknown to the common law ... is more than an ordinary statute of limitations ... and goes to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.”14 The Young court then effectively sought to erase the legal authority preceding it, concluding as follows: Thus, to the extent that post-1964 case law views the six-month limitation in section 8-1(a) of the Probate Act as a jurisdictional requirement, Belleville Toyota instructs that that case law is no longer controlling.

Therefore, here, we reject defendants’ argument that section 8-1(a) is jurisdictional ....15 10 11 12 13 14

15

16

In re Estate of Young, 2020 Ill App (2d) 190392.

See 735 ILCS 5/13-217.

Young, 2020 IL App (2d) 190392, at ¶26.

Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill.2d 325 (2002).

Young, 2020 IL App (2d) 190392 at ¶26.

Id.

The Docket

In short, the Young court interpreted the Illinois Supreme Court’s 2002 Belleville Toyota decision as standing for the proposition that Section 8-1(a) should no longer be treated as a jurisdictional limitations period. This holding is surprising not only because it directly contravenes decades of legal authority declaring Section 8-1(a) to be jurisdictional, but also because the Belleville Toyota case did not even concern Section 8-1(a). Rather, Belleville Toyota concerned a claim brought under the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act16, a statute wholly unrelated to Section 8-1(a).

The Young court’s holding is also surprising because multiple cases after the 2002 Belleville Toyota case have explicitly stated that Section 8-1(a) is a jurisdictional limitations period, in direct contravention of the Young court’s reasoning.17 In fact, one such case is the 2009 decision of In re Estate of Ellis, which—like Belleville Toyota—was issued by the Illinois Supreme Court, but which—unlike Belleville Toyota—dealt directly with Section 8-1(a).18 Seven years after the Belleville Toyota decision upon with the Young court relied, the Illinois Supreme Court explicitly stated in Ellis that the will contest limitations period in Section 8-1(a) “... is jurisdictional and not subject to tolling ....”19 Likewise, Bjork v. O’Meara, issued by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2013—11 years after the Belleville Toyota decision—squarely addressed Section 8-1(a) and unequivocally reiterated that “[t]his six-month limitations period is not subject to tolling by fraudulent concealment or any other fact not expressly provided for by the Probate Act.”20 In short, it appears that in declaring Section 8-1(a) to not be jurisdictional, the Young court relied upon older and distinguishable authority, to the exclusion of newer and directly on-point authority. Given that reality, it is difficult to treat the Young court’s holding as the controlling reading of Section 8-1(a). That said, the Young decision has not been overruled.

THE BOTTOM LINE ON THE WILL CONTEST LIMITATIONS PERIOD. The overwhelming majority of cases—including the Illinois Supreme Court decisions of Ellis and Bjork—have explicitly stated that the will contest limitations period set forth in Section 8-1(a) is a jurisdictional limitations period. The Young decision—a 2020 Second District Case—disagrees, but it is difficult to square its conclusion with the authority that preceded it. As such, the stronger argument may be that Young is an aberration, and that Section 8-1(a) remains a jurisdictional limitations period.

Again, however, Young has not been overruled, so any party looking to jump the will contest bar would be wise 16 17 18 19 20

815 ILCS 710/1.

See, e.g., Mohr, 357 Ill.App.3d 1011 (a 2005 decision); Howell, 373 Ill.App.3d 342 (a 2007 decision).

See Ellis, 236 Ill.2d at 45.

Id. at 50.

Bjork v. O’Meara, 2013 IL 114044, ¶23.

We’ve got you covered. ISBA Mutual is an Illinoisonly insurance company specializing in insuring solo practitioners and small firms.

Comprehensive Professional Liability Coverage Options for limits of liability and deductibles to fit your needs, to protect your firm, and to protect your clients

Practice Resource Center

Valuable information and resources to help you manage your practice

Free CLE

Both online and in-person events

Risk Management Helpline

Whether you have a potential liability issue, need advice on managing your practice, or an ethical question…we are here to help

Like you, we deal directly with clients, not agents or brokers.

Contact us and talk with a decision-maker.

(312) 379-2000 | ISBAMUTUAL.COM/APPLY

January 2024

17

to point to the decision and give it a try.

THE TRUST CONTEST LIMITATIONS PERIOD, GENERALLY What about the limitations period for trust contests?

No shortage of statutory authority exists on this subject; to the contrary, no less than three (!) separate statutes directly address it.

Speaking broadly, the Illinois Trust Code (“ITC”) makes clear that an action to contest a trust may be filed within two years after the settlor’s death.21 However, an enormous exception to this rule exists. Section 604(a)(2) (A) of the ITC states as follows: [I]n the case of a trust to which a legacy is provided by the settlor’s will that is admitted to probate, [the trust contest limitations period corresponds to] the time to contest the validity of the settlor’s will as provided in the Probate Act of 1975 . . . .”22

period for a trust contest is the six-month window, rather than the general two-year limitations period.

IS THE SIX-MONTH TRUST CONTEST LIMITATIONS PERIOD JURISDICTIONAL? So this begs the question: is the six-month trust contest limitations period jurisdictional, given that it is tied to the will contest limitations period which has long been described as jurisdictional? The answer, again, is less clear than it should be.

Originally, the six-month trust contest limitations period was only set forth in Section 13-223 of the Code, rather than the ITC or the Probate Act. As a result, in the case of Anderson v. Marquette National Bank, the First District held that the six-month trust contest limitations period was not jurisdictional in nature.25 In particular, the Anderson court reasoned as follows: [T]he reference to the six-month limitation period of the Probate Act in section 13-233 [of the Code] does not carry with it the jurisdictional aspect of the Probate Act. The reference is merely to a time frame from which to commence the running of a limitation period (admission of the will to probate) and the duration of that time (six months). Since trust beneficiaries affected by section 13-233 [of the Code] are not afforded the protection given to heirs and legatees under section 6-1 et seq of the Probate Act, the six month period of limitation is subject to enlargement.26

Mirroring this provision, Section 13-223 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“Section 13-223”) states as follows: An action to set aside or contest the validity of a revocable inter vivos trust agreement or declaration of trust to which a legacy is provided by the settlor’s will which is admitted to probate, shall be commenced within and not after the time to contest the validity of the will as provided in the Probate Act of 1975, as amended.23 Using nearly identical language, Section 8-1(f) of the Probate Act (“Section 8-1(f)”) states as follows: An action to set aside or contest the validity of a revocable inter vivos trust agreement or declaration of trust to which a legacy is provided by the settlor’s will which is admitted to probate shall be commenced within and not after the time to contest the validity of the will as provided in [Section 8-1(a)] ....24 The point of all three of these statutes is this: where a trust receives a bequest from a decedent’s will, and where the decedent’s will has been admitted to probate, the trust contest limitations period narrows to the same six-month window as the will contest limitations period. As any estates and trusts practitioner will tell you, the vast majority of trusts subject to challenge are legatees of a will, and—as a result—the most commonly encountered limitations 21 22

23 24

18

760 ILCS 3/604(a)(1).

760 ILCS 3/604(a)(2)(A). As a side note, under certain circumstances, the ITC also empowers a trustee narrow the trust contest limitations period to six-months by issuing a particular notice and a copy of the trust instrument to appropriate recipients. See 760 ILCS 3/604(a)(2)(B).

735 ILCS 5/13-223.

755 ILCS 5/8-1(f).

The Docket

Put simply, the Anderson court concluded that, because the trust contest limitations period was set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure, rather than the Probate Act, it did not have the same jurisdictional nature as the will contest limitations period in Section 8-1 of the Probate Act. This changed, however. After Anderson, the sixmonth trust contest limitations period was added into Section 8-1 of the Probate Act, in addition to being set forth in the Code.27 The reasoning of the Anderson decision thus broke down, because it hinged upon the trust contest limitations period not being set forth in the Probate Act, when in reality it was now set forth in the very same section of the Probate Act as the will contest limitations period. That is, the six-month will contest limitations period could be found in Section 8-1(a) of the Probate Act, and the six-month trust contest limitations period could now be found in Section 8-1(f).

The question then naturally arose: now that the sixmonth trust contest limitations period was in the Probate Act, would it have the same jurisdictional nature as the sixmonth will contest limitations period in the Probate Act? This question was answered by the First District in 25 26 27

Anderson v. Marquette Nat. Bank, 164 Ill.App.3d 626, 635 (1st Dist. 1987).

Id. See 755 ILCS 5/8-1(f).

the case of In re Estate of Luccio.28 Specifically, the Luccio court reasoned as follows: [W]e have previously characterized the limitation period of a testamentary trust contest under section 13-233 [of the Code] as administrative and not jurisdictional. *

*

*

[T]he analysis underlying our holding in Anderson must be revisited to reflect the change that the legislature made to include testamentary trust contests within the statutory organization of the [Probate] Act .... [B]ecause subsection (f) [i.e., the six-month trust contest limitations period] is part of the [Probate] Act, it must be construed as a jurisdictional limitation, as subsection (a) [i.e., the six-month will contest limitations period] has long been construed.29 In other words, the Luccio court concluded that, because the six-month trust contest limitations period was added to the Probate Act, it became a jurisdictional statute of limitations. The Luccio court reached this conclusion based on the fact that the six-month will contest 28 29

In re Estate of Luccio, 2012 IL App (1st) 21153, ¶20.

Id.

limitations period set forth in the Probate Act had long been construed as jurisdictional.

This would appear, at first blush, to be the final answer. Controlling authority has made clear that the six-month trust contest limitations period poses a jurisdictional bar. However, the reasoning of Luccio depends entirely upon the proposition that the six-month will contest limitations period is jurisdictional in nature.

For reasons already explained, the Young case has now thrown that conclusion into the air, such that it is no longer clear whether the will contest period is jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional. The result is that Young has not only muddied the waters for the will contest limitations period, it also has done so for the corresponding sixmonth trust contest limitations period.

THE BOTTOM LINE ON THE SIX-MONTH TRUST CONTEST LIMITATIONS PERIOD. Well-reasoned and controlling authority has made clear that the six-month trust contest limitations period is jurisdictional in nature. This still seems like the best position to take as an advocate. That said, the Young decision has arguably upended not only the jurisdictional nature of the will contest limitations period, but also—by extension—the six-month trust contest limitations period. As such, if you find yourself in the position of having to file late, it is certainly worth a try.

Resolute Systems Welcomes

JUDGE DAVID BRODSKY, ret.

MEDIATOR | ARBITRATOR

to Our Illinois Team of Dispute Resolution Professionals Resolute Systems is pleased to welcome Judge David Brodsky, Ret. to our team of dispute resolution professionals. Judge Brodsky will concentrate his mediation practice in the areas of: We congratulate Judge Brodsky on his outstanding judicial career where he developed a reputation as an extremely effective pre-trial mediator. To schedule mediation with Judge Brodsky, please contact Mike Weinzierl at 312.346.3770, x125 or go to our Web Pages at davidbrodskymediation.com

• Personal Injury

• Products Liability

• Nursing Home

• Wrongful Death

• Contract

• Premises Liability

• Medical Malpractice

• Mechanics Lien Litigation

• Defamation

• Legal Malpractice

• Eminent Domain

• Divorce & Family

• Commercial

• Probate

January 2024

19

Reviews: What Are Critics Saying About Their Sneak Peak at this Year’s Upcoming Gridiron Show?

T

BY GENEPOOL SHALLOWS

he Gridiron 2024 will run Friday, March 8, and Saturday March 9, at the Gorton Center Theatre. As part of an admittedly shameless effort to promote the show, members of the Gridiron staff and certain cast members recently met with a group of local “experts” to gauge their reaction to this year’s comedic compilations (no there was no Daubert test, so don’t go there).

Here are just a few of the esteemed critics’ remarks (with all attributions omitted to protect the “integrity of the process”).

“With the world as it is, only the most cockeyed optimist could always look on the bright side of life. Still, anyone can do it during this completely delightful renewal of the LCBA Gridiron show. I’m not sure how many people were asking for the Gridiron’s return after its two-year absence, but trust me, this cheery concoction has arrived just in the nick of time.”

“It is clear everyone on stage is having a very good time, not just playing such outlandish characters, but also in-joking about their very business. You can see smiles and giggles being visibly, desperately contained as the jokes rain down.

If you’ve missed snickering at a show comfortable with its own juvenility, you will love the 2024 Gridiron. The show’s superbly written and performed silliness is endless, beguiling, winning, and oh so well-done. The Gridiron remains a daffy, rollicking night out. Don’t miss it.”

“The Gridiron opens in Lake Forest soon, and it’s safe to say lawyers haven’t been this funny since, well, the last time the Gridiron opened at the Gorton Center nearly 2 years ago. Perfectly cast and splendidly performed, with Craig

20 The Docket

and Stella’s deceptively no-frills direction (and choreography) placing the irresistible goings-on front and center, the current iteration has lost none of the smart-dumb charm of either the prior Gridirons or its great source of inspiration – the beloved members of the Lake County Bar.” “Comedy can be an ephemeral thing. So, I was curious to see if this year’s Gridiron potentially has a shelf life longer than a certain infamous canned pork product. The answer is yes, thanks largely to an excellent cast of consummate wanna-be comedians and a script that derives its humor from the timelessly absurd exploits of the 19th Judicial Circuit. It asks very little of you over the course of a few diverting hours and sends you on your way with a smile — and when it comes to a Gridiron show, that’s the point, and it’s perfectly delightful.”

“Will this year’s Gridiron go down in the history books as one of the best? It’s possible, but also unlikely that anyone can truly make that judgment. However, given the dark clouds hovering over the world these days, the bright side of the Lake County Bar looks pretty darn good. The new iteration of the Gridiron funfest seeks to bring a welcome dose of both hilarious deconstruction and old-fashioned razzle-dazzle. And that’s a quest that Craig, Stella, and their merry band can take on at any time. You don’t want to miss it!”

Pull Quote

January 2024

21

Lake County Bar Foundation Minutes

The

Meeting Minutes

BY SHYAMA PARIKH SECRETARY

October 17, 2023

P

resent: Joann Fratianni (President, in person), Kristie Fingerhut (Vice President, zoom), Perry Smith Jr. (Treasurer, zoom), Shyama Parikh (Secretary, zoom), Louise Hayes (in person), Michael Ori (in person), Jennifer Ashley (zoom), Steve McCullum (zoom), Melanie Rummel (zoom), Keith Grant (zoom), and David Stepanich (zoom). Also present was Greg Weider, Executive Director of the LCBA and LCBF and Kevin Berrill from the LCBA Executive Board.

I. CALLED TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by President Fratianni at 4:05pm, a quorum being present in person/ zoom, at the LCBF office.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made to approve the minutes of the 8/15/23 meeting by Perry Smith and seconded

by Michael Ori. Motion approved.

22 The Docket

III. TREASURER’S REPORT: Treasurer, Perry Smith Jr., reported that the accounts show typical expenses, except for some expenses related to repairs to the building. Greg was able to get a refund of excess charges on the bank account and that the charge will be $25/month moving forward.

Warrant approval of expenses paid: The Warrants for Expenses were presented for approval.

Motion made by Michael Ori to approve the expenses and was seconded

by Keith Grant. Motion approved.

IV. PRESIDENT’S REPORT: President Fratianni met with LCBA President K. Hatch to discuss joint issues of the Foundation and Association. They will be communicating regularly and have agreed to keep the lines of communication

open. Discussion was had on having more joint events.

V. OLD BUSINESS: The carpeting has been replaced in the Member Center; the bulges were related to the plywood being glued instead of being screwed on before the carpet was glued to the plywood. We now have squares of the carpet that can be readily replaced, which will be much easier than the rolls of carpet that were previously used.

VI. NEW BUSINESS: A. Committee Reports: a. Fundraising and Grants: They are planning for another Battle of the Bands event at 28 Mile on 2/8/24. Motion made by Jennifer Ashley to approve the event and was seconded by Melanie Rummel.

Motion approved. Motion made by Perry Smith to approve $750 to secure venue and sound for the event and seconded by

Michael Ori. Motion approved. A beneficiary from the event will need to be determined. b. Website: A meeting took place to discuss the current website and it was unanimous that a new site would need to be created and tweaking the current site would not be sufficient. The main complaints about the current site center around registration for events, making payments, and the calendar. A major goal is to make the site more user friendly. Kevin Berrill appeared as the liaison from the LCBA Board and noted difficulties with the collection of dues. Investigation continues and developers will be contacted. c. Long Range Planning: A meeting took place and the possible establishment of a fund to pay Guardians ad litem was discussed. Issues related to taxes and a conflict of interest were brought up.

B. Building Repairs Update: Plumbing issues were resolved, the heating unit above Unit A was fixed, and the kitchen ice maker at the LCBA office was repaired. We will need to eventually address the beer cooler in member center. A bid was received to fix the floor/carpeting for

the bulges in the conference room and Greg’s office and will be discussed at the next meeting.

VII. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to Adjourn was made at 4:39pm by Michael Ori and was seconded by Steve McCullom.

Motion approved.

Contact the LCBA office for pricing at 847-244-3143

When you retire, your money should keep working.

Someday you’ll stop working, and at that point, you’ll have to depend on your retirement income. You’ll need a strategy.

With over 40 years of experience, I create and manage strategies for goals like retirement, estate planning and leaving a legacy. Let’s put your money to work.

Call us today to set up an appointment.

Pictured above (from the left): Karina A. Elperin (Wealth Management Associate), David J. Gordon (Senior Portfolio Management Director, Executive Director, Financial Advisor), Rafal Fidowicz (Registered Associate)

The Gordon Financial Group at Morgan Stanley 111 South Pfingsten Road, Suite 200 Deerfield, IL 60015 +1 847 291-5500 David J Gordon, CFP®, CIMA®, CDFA™ Senior Portfolio Management Director Executive Director Financial Advisor NMLS# 1268300 david.j.gordon@morganstanley.com www.TheGordonFinancialGroup.com

The use of the CDFA designation does not permit the rendering of legal advice by Morgan Stanley or its Financial Advisors which may only be done by a licensed attorney. The CDFA designation is not intended to imply that either Morgan Stanley or its Financial Advisors are acting as experts in this field. Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. owns the certification marks CFP®, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ in the U.S. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley”), its affiliates and Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor do not provide tax or legal advice. Clients should consult their tax advisor for matters involving taxation and tax planning and their attorney for matters involving trust and estate planning and other legal matters. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC. CRC 5343466 01/2023

January 2024

23

Board of Directors’ Meeting

The

November 16, 2023

M

inutes of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Lake County Bar Association held in the Executive Conference Room of the Lake County Bar Association, 300-A BOARD OF DIRECTORS Katharine Hatch

President

Daniel Hodgkinson

First Vice President Kevin Berrill

Second Vice President Richard Gellersted

Treasurer

Jeffrey Berman

Secretary

Tara Devin Immediate Past President Craig Mandell

Director

Jeremy Harter

Director

Jeffrey O’Kelley

Director

Sarah Raisch

Director

Judy Maldonado

Director

Hon. Bolling Haxall

Director Greg Weider Executive Director

24 The Docket

Grand Avenue, Waukegan, Illinois, on Thursday, November 16, 2023.

CALL TO ORDER President Hatch called the meeting to order at 12:14 p.m.

ROLL CALL Roll call indicated a quorum was established, with the following individuals present in person: Daniel Hodgkinson, First Vice President; Richard Gellersted, Treasurer; Jeremy Harter, Director; Hon. Bolling Haxall, Director; and Greg Weider, Executive Director. The following individuals attended by Zoom videoconference: Katharine Hatch, President; Jeffrey Berman, Secretary; Tara Devine, Immediate Past President; Craig Mandell, Director; and Judy Maldonado, Director.

ACTION ITEMS • Consent Agenda Items October 19, 2023 Board of Directors

Meeting Minutes

BY JEFFREY A. BERMAN SECRETARY

Meeting Minutes The Draft minutes from the October 19, 2023, meeting of the Board of Directors was included in the agenda packet. There were no requests for other additions, corrections, or changes to the draft minutes.

October New Members and Membership Report The New Members report as of November 10, 2023, was included in the Agenda packet, along with a full Membership report as of November 10, 2023.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda.

Upon unanimous voice vote, the motion was declared carried. The Consent Agenda is approved.

• Treasurer’s Report The October 2023 Financial Report and supporting materials were included in the Agenda packet. Treasurer Gellersted made a presentation regarding the October

2023 Financial Report.

Discussion followed. A motion was made and seconded to approve the Treasurer’s Report. Upon unanimous voice vote, the motion was declared carried. The Treasurer’s Report is approved.

OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS LCBA/LCBF Website Improvements Update / Marketing Audit President Hatch and Executive Director Weider made a presentation concerning the status of the Committee’s work to explore potential website improvements and a related suggestion from the consultant that the LCBA consider conducting a marketing / technology audit in the future. Discussion followed.

GRIDIRON TICKETS President Hatch and Executive Director Weider made a presentation

concerning the pricing of Gridiron tickets, and the contemplated increase for Gridiron 2024. Discussion and a polling of the Board for staff guidance followed.

ISBA multi bar sponsorship for Holiday Party with the Supreme Court President Hatch made a presentation concerning the request from the ISBA for the LCBA to join other bar associations in spon-

soring a multi bar holiday party with the Supreme Court. Discussion and a polling of the Board for staff guidance followed.

OTHER MATTERS Committee Liaison Reports Board members provided Committee updates.

Pi Day – 3/14/24 President Hatch and Executive Director Weider made a presentation concerning a proposal to hold a pie baking contest on Pi Day, March 14, 2024.

Discussion and a polling of the Board for staff guidance followed.

Executive Director Report Executive Director Weider presented his Executive Director Report for November, including providing an update on upcoming scheduled events, meetings and CLE opportunities, and re-

Veterans History Project continued from page 9 financial, and emotional needs of our surviving brothers and sisters-inarms are met when they return to us after their service.

But, there is more we can do on a daily basis.

In the 1998 D-Day movie Saving Private Ryan, an 8-man squad led

by Ranger Captain John H. Miller (played by Tom Hanks) rescued Private James Ryan (Matt Damon), the last surviving brother of four brothers who were serving in the armed forces in WW II. In doing so, they suffered the loss of six of their eight members, including Captain Miller, who was killed helping to defend a bridge with the last of his men.

Captain Miller’s dying words to Private James Ryan, the soldier he and his men saved, were: “James – Earn this. Earn it!”

More than fifty years later, James Ryan visited Captain Miller’s grave in Normandy with his family and said:

capping the LCBA promotional presence at the recent new bar admittee ceremony.

ADJOURNMENT A motion was made to adjourn. Upon unanimous voice vote, the motion was declared carried.

The meeting concluded at 12:49 p.m. The next Board of Directors Meeting is scheduled to take place on Thursday, December 21, 2023.

2

“Every day, I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. I’ve tried to live my life the best that I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that at least in your eyes, I’ve earned what all of you have done for me.”

The best way for us to honor our fallen veterans is by earning their sacrifices; by continuing to serve as examples to our fellow Americans; by living the best, most unselfish lives that we can.

On this Veterans Day, let us rededicate ourselves to our community, our country, and our fellow Americans.

Let each of us be able to say to our fallen comrades: “I hope that at least in your eyes, I’ve earned what all of you have done for me.”

Thank you again for your service.

May God bless all our veterans, living and dead, and May God Bless the United States of America!

The

4

2 4

Calendar of Events

2024 Gridiron Meeting 1/9/2024 5:30 - 6:30 PM LCBA Office Waukegan Civil Trial & Appeals Committee Meeting 1/10/2024 4:00 PM Zoom Solo & Small Firm Committee Meeting 1/22/2024 12:15 -1:15 pm Zoom Local Government Committee Meeting 1/23/2024 12:15 PM Zoom Juvenile Law Committee Meeting 1/24/2024 12:15-1:15 PM Zoom Juvenile Law Committee Meeting 2/8/24 2024 Battle of the LCBA Bands 2/8/2024 5:00 PM 28 Mile Highwood

Lake County Bar Foundation Board of Trustees Meeting 2/20/2024 4:00 PM Zoom Local Government Committee Meeting 2/27/2024 12:15 PM Zoom 2024 Gridiron 3/8/2024 - 3/9/2024 6:30 - 9:30 PM Gorton Community Center Lake Forest Annual Meeting Luncheon 3/19/2024 12:15 - 1:15 PM Glen Flora Country Club Waukegan 2024 Annual Family Law Seminar 4/11/2024 - 4/13/2024 The Meritage Resort & Spa Napa, CA Lake County Bar Foundation Board of Trustees Meeting 4/16/2024 4:00 PM Zoom Local Government Committee Meeting 4/23/2024 12:15 PM Zoom

January 2024 25

A Hammer or an Anvil

I

n January, we commemorate the life and enduring legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. His unwavering commitment to nonviolent resistance in the pursuit of equal rights for Black Americans not only earned him the Nobel Prize but also secured a place for him on Time Magazine’s list of the 20 most influential Americans of all time. Dr. King’s eloquence and rhetorical prowess have etched him into the collective memory as one of the most quoted figures in American history.

My admiration for Dr. King’s courage and visionary leadership dates back to my undergraduate days. It was during this time that I encountered a quote often attributed to him: “We are not makers of history; we are made by history.” This

26 The Docket

statement, seemingly at odds with Dr. King’s dedication to equality and self-determination, originates from a sermon in his 1963 book, “Strength of Love.”

The context is crucial— Dr. King emphasizes the reluctance of people to step outside their comfort zones and make history. Effecting change is inherently challenging and often perilous, demanding individuals to transcend their comfort levels and make personal sacrifices.

Dr. King, in the sermon titled “Transformational Non-Conformist,” illustrates this choice by quoting Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, who aptly notes that “every man is a hammer or an anvil.” This implies that individuals either shape society or succumb to soci-

In the

Director’s Chair

etal molding, presenting a formidable decision for our role in shaping society and influencing history. This decision necessitates turning away from the comfort of the status quo and actively pursuing fairness, equality, and justice.

Despite significant strides, our nation grapples with persistent racial disparities in income, education, employment, and health. Simultaneously, political polarization, violent rhetoric, and the dissemination of misleading information are on the ascent. Dr. King’s message resonates as powerfully today as it did in his era.

Amidst the escalating disunity, I remain steadfast in my belief that the principles uniting us are more potent than the divisive forces.

At the core of our society lies a robust legal system, dedicated to our Constitution and the rule of law. It’s a system where all individuals, institutions, and entities are

BY GREG WEIDER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR accountable to laws that are impartially, independently, and publicly enforced. The formation of the Lake County Bar Association (LCBA) was, in part, driven by a commitment to enhancing equal access to justice, promoting the administration of justice, and fostering greater diversity among the bar and judiciary. The LCBA assumes a pivotal role in maintaining a flourishing legal system, and I extend my appreciation to all its members diligently working to ensure access to justice and uphold the principles of the rule of law.

On this Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I encourage you to reflect on Dr. King’s profound legacy, its place in our history, and the potential impact on our nation’s future. If inclined, let this day be one of service—a day where you actively seek opportunities to bridge divides and contribute to the realization of a more just and equitable society.

LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE

WHY SHOULD YOU JOIN? The LCBA Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) is a valuable member benefit as well as a public service. LRS provides member attorneys with an opportunity to build business through client referrals. The service benefits the public by helping callers quickly find an attorney in the area of law in which they need help.

The LRS program is designed to assist persons who are able to pay normal attorney fees but whose ability to locate legal representation is frustrated by a lack of experience with the legal system, a lack of information about the type of services needed, or a fear of the potential costs of seeing a lawyer.

Cost is only $200 annually for a Standard listing or $350 for a Premium listing. Download the application at www.lakebar.org/page/LRS or contact the LCBA office for more information.

ATTORNEYS NEEDED IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES • Administrative • Bankruptcy • Commercial • Consumer • Employment • Environmental • Estate Planning, Wills, Trusts and Probate Visit lakecountylawyer.info for a complete list of available categories.

CONTACT THE LCBA AT 847.244.3143 OR INFO@LAKEBAR.ORG

LAKECOUNTYLAWYER.INFO

January 2024 27

Monthly

Committee Meetings

DAY

GO TO

WWW.LAKEBAR.ORG FOR THE MOST UP-TO-DATE CALENDAR INFORMATION

Bar

Bulletin Board

To place an ad or for information on advertising rates, call (847) 244-3143

MEETING

LOCATION

TIME

1st Tuesday

Diversity & Community Outreach

Virtual Until Further Notice

12:15-1:15

1st Thursday

Real Estate

VUFN

5:30-6:30

1st Thursday (Even Mo.)

Docket Editorial Committee

VUFN

12:15-1:15

2nd Tuesday

Criminal Law

VUFN

12:15-1:15

2nd Tuesday (Odd Mo.)

Immigration

VUFN

4:30-5:30

2nd Wednesday

Family Law Advisory Group (FLAG)

VUFN

12:00-1:00

2nd Wednesday

Civil Trial and Appeals

VUFN

4:00-5:00

2nd Thursday

Young & New Lawyers

VUFN

12:15-1:15

2nd Thursday

Trusts and Estates

VUFN

12:15-1:15

3rd Monday (Odd Mo.)

Solo & Small Firms

VUFN

12:00 noon

3rd Tuesday

Local Government

VUFN

12:15-1:15

3rd Tuesday

LCBF Board of Trustees

VUFN

4:00

3rd Wednesday

Family Law

VUFN

12:00-1:00

3rd Thursday

LCBA Board of Directors

VUFN

12:00 noon

3rd Thursday

Debtor/Creditor Rights

VUFN

5:30-6:30

As Needed

Employment Law

VUFN

5:15-6:15

• RSVP to a meeting at www.lakebar.org.

• Meetings subject to change. Please check your weekly e-news, the on-line calendar at www.lakebar.org or call the LCBA Office @ (847) 244-3143.

• Please feel free to bring your lunch to the LCBA office for any noon meetings. Food and beverages at restaurants are purchased on a individual basis.

FOUNDED IN 1903 ROBERT W. CHURCHILL JOHN W. QUINN MARK VAN DONSELAAR JOHN L. QUINN AMBER L. DESSELLES MARY LEE BERRESHEIM JAMES J. BABOWICE SUSAN MORGAN BRADLEY PRACTICING IN LITIGATION & APPEALS, RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE, BUSINESS LAW, ESTATE PLANNING, & TRUST ADMINISTRATION

TWO SOUTH WHITNEY, GRAYSLAKE, IL 60030 • (847) 223-1500 • WWW.GRAYSLAKELAW.COM

28 The Docket

January 2024 29

300 Grand Avenue, Suite A Waukegan, IL 60085 Tel: 847-244-3143 Fax: 847-244-8259

MEMBER RECEPTION

MEMBER RECEPTION SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

LCBA Member Receptions will generally be held on the 4th Thursday of every month.

Your $500 sponsorship includes: • Recognition in advertising before the event and on signage at the event • Reception from 4:30 – 6:30 p.m.

• Complimentary beer and wine. Upgrades available for additional fee.

Contact info@lakebar.org to add your name to a reception.

30 The Docket