In re McDonald

240 N.E.3d 1214

2024 IL App (2d) 230195

IN RE ESTATE OF John W. MCDONALD III, Deceased

(Ellizzette McDonald, Petitioner-Appellant

v.Shawn McDonald, Respondent-Appellee).

No. 2-23-0195

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

Filed April 15, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County. No. 17-P-744, Honorable Robert K. Villa, Judge, Presiding.

Steven J. Roeder and Ryan P. Weitendorf, of Roeder Law Offices LLC, of Chicago, and Robert G. Black, of Law Offices of Robert G. Black, P.C., of Naperville, for appellant.

Peter M. Storm, of Storm & Piscopo, P.C., of Geneva, and Paul G. Krentz, of Kinnally Flaherty Krentz Loran Hodge & Masur PC, of Aurora, for appellee.

OPINION

JUSTICE MULLEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 This case concerns the estate of decedent, John W. McDonald III (John). In a prior appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed a ruling of the circuit court of Kane County that petitioner, Ellizzette McDonald (Ellizzette), had failed to present a prima facie case establishing the validity of her marriage to John. In re Estate of McDonald, 2022 IL 126956, 460 Ill.Dec. 652, 201 N.E.3d 1125. Ellizzette then sought to assert her rights as John’s putative spouse. To that end, Ellizzette filed a motion for leave to amend objections to the amended proposed distribution plan of the appointed administrator of John’s estate, respondent, Shawn McDonald (Shawn), and a motion to amend the order declaring heirship of John’s estate. Ellizzette contended that she was John’s putative spouse under Illinois law because she participated in a marriage ceremony with John, had cohabited with him in the good-faith belief that she was lawfully married, and did not learn that she was not John’s legal spouse until after he had passed away. After the trial court denied both of her motions, Ellizzette filed a notice of appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The facts underlying this case have been set forth at length in the parties’ prior appeals. See In re Estate of McDonald, 2022 IL 126956, 460 Ill.Dec. 652, 201 N.E.3d 1125, rev’g 2020 IL App (2d) 191113, 452 Ill.Dec. 68, 184 N.E.3d 1049. We recount here only those facts and procedural matters necessary to place in context the issues raised in the present appeal.

¶ 4 On May 30, 2017, the circuit court of Kane County entered an order declaring John a disabled person in need of guardianship, as defined in the Probate Act of 1975 (Probate Act) (755 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. (West 2016)). The court appointed Shawn (John’s brother), as the plenary guardian of John’s person and estate. Following Shawn’s appointment, John moved to vacate the guardianship order. The court denied John’s motion at a hearing on July 6, 2017, but appointed independent counsel (Anthony Scifo) to assist John in seeking the termination of the guardianship.

¶ 5 On July 11, 2017, John and Ellizzette participated in a marriage ceremony in Edgar County. In deposition testimony, Scifo testified that Ellizzette never told him that she and John had married.¹ The first indication Scifo had of John’s and Ellizzette’s wedding ceremony was when he received a marriage certificate from Ellizzette’s attorney in October or November 2017. Scifo further testified that in July or August 2017, prior to learning of the purported marriage, he discussed the validity of a marriage with John and Ellizzette over the phone. Scifo testified. "I believe I said to them *** that they shouldn’t get married because there was a guardianship action that had been imposed and *** the marriage could be voided by Shawn McDonald because he was the plenary guardian of John." Asked what Ellizzette’s response was to his statement, Scifo testified that Ellizzette said:

"In Australia there is common law marriages that happen all the time, that she was part of the State Department, and according to some international law, the two of them could get married andthis wouldn’t be an issue, and various other representations of law in other jurisdictions, to which I merely stated ‘I am licensed in the State of Illinois and only know the law here.’ "

Scifo testified that he also told Ellizzette that common law marriages were not valid in Illinois.

¶ 6 In addition, Scifo testified that, in response to Ellizzette’s questions to him about marriage, "[his] statements *** were always [that John] was under [a] guardianship and [he] advised against [marriage] because Shawn would probably have the ability to void the marriage *** as the plenary guardian." Scifo also testified that, in conversations with John, he "would reiterate over and over again, I don’t know that you should get married because *** your brother has guardianship over you and he would be able to void it. They’ll file a motion, they’ll do something and they’ll void this marriage." Scifo testified that these conversations took place after the date of the marriage (but before he knew of the marriage). Ellizzette stated in deposition testimony that she became aware that John was a ward of the court sometime in 2017. She later learned that Shawn had been appointed as the guardian. Ellizzette also stated in her deposition testimony that she knew Scifo represented John and that Scifo had "cautioned" John, prior to their wedding ceremony, "that they may try to invalidate the marriage."²

¶ 7 John died intestate on December 11, 2017. On December 15, 2017, Shawn filed a petition for letters of administration and an affidavit of heirship. In the affidavit, Shawn averred that John’s only heirs were his parents (John W. McDonald Jr. and Brenda K. McDonald) and his three siblings (Shawn, Heather Ladue, and Brett McDonald). Shawn acknowledged that John "participated in a wedding ceremony with Ellizzette Duvall Minnicelli," but he claimed that the marriage was void ab initio because, as a ward, John lacked the capacity to consent to the marriage. On December 19, 2017, the trial court entered orders appointing Shawn administrator and declaring John’s heirs to be his parents and three siblings.

¶ 8 On December 22, 2017, Shawn filed a petition for a declaration of invalidity of marriage, pursuant to section 301(1) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Marriage Act) (750 ILCS 5/301(1) (West 2016)). In the petition, Shawn stated that, during a guardianship hearing on November 16, 2017, he first learned that John had participated in a purported marriage ceremony on July 11, 2017. Shawn asserted that, because John was subject to a guardianship at the time he participated in the marriage ceremony, he lacked the legal capacity to consent to the marriage.

¶ 9 On January 17, 2018, Ellizzette moved to vacate the court’s orders appointing Shawn administrator of John’s estate and declaring heirship. Ellizzette asserted that she was John’s surviving spouse and, as such, his sole heir. Ellizzette further asserted that Shawn was aware that she was John’s surviving spouse and, therefore, obtained letters of administration under false pretenses. On February 1, 2018, Ellizzette filed a response to Shawn’s petition for declaration of invalidity of marriage, denying that John lacked the capacity to consent to marry.

¶ 10 On March 7, 2018, Shawn voluntarily withdrew his petition for declaration of invalidity of marriage. On the same day, Shawn filed his response to Ellizzette’s motion to vacate his appointment as administrator, asserting that, although Ellizzette may have participated in a marriage ceremony, John lacked the capacity to enter into a legally valid marriage contract because he was a ward subject to plenary guardianship. In support of his position, Shawn cited section 11a-22(b) of the Probate Act (755 ILCS 5/11a-22(b) (West 2016)), which provides that

"[e]very note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby."

Shawn argued that marriage is a contract and, pursuant to the terms of section 11a-22(b) of the Probate Act, the marriage contract of July 11, 2017, is void.

¶ 11 Ellizzette replied, asserting that section 11a-22(b) of the Probate Act was inapplicable to a marriage contract. She contended that the validity of a marriage was governed by section 301 of the Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/301 (West 2016)). Further, she argued that the validity of the marriage could not be challenged because John was deceased and section 302(b) of the Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/302(b) (West 2016)) prohibits a party from seeking a declaration of invalidity of marriage after the death of either party to the marriage.

¶ 12 After a hearing on April 18, 2018, the trial court denied Ellizzette’s motion to vacate the order appointing Shawn administrator but granted her leave to file a petition for letters of administration and an affidavit of heirship based on her assertion that she was John’s surviving spouse and sole heir. Ellizzette filed that petition on May 1, 2018. On June 7, 2018, Ellizzette filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding her petition for letters of administration. Shawn filed a response in opposition to Ellizzette’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and, subsequently, a motion requesting that portions of transcripts from depositions taken of Scifo and Ellizzette be incorporated as part of his response. After a hearing on September 10, 2018, the trial court denied Ellizzette’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as "premature."

¶ 13 On October 2, 2018, Shawn filed a motion requesting the trial court to take judicial notice of the "Certified Copy of Edgar County, Illinois Marriage Application and Record of John *** and Ellizzette Duvall Minicelli [sic]." Shawn attached three documents to his motion: (1) a certified copy of a "Certification of Marriage" between John and "Ellizzette Duvall Minnicelli" issued by the clerk of Edgar County...