Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; June 17, 1977; Illinois; State Appellate Court
The court addressed whether the administrator's pleadings and affidavit provided adequate grounds to reopen an estate under section 308a of the Probate Act. The appellant petitioned to reopen the estate, which had been closed on May 24, 1973, citing the discovery of additional personal property, specifically family heirlooms and art. The trial court agreed to reopen the estate and issued letters of administration to the appellant, directing a citation to recover assets against the appellee. In response, the appellee asserted that the personal property was not newly discovered, as the appellant and other heirs were aware of its existence prior to the estate's closure, as indicated in the estate's final account regarding discovery fees for the assets. The appellee requested to vacate the order reopening the estate.
The appellant admitted that the estate's final account showed prior awareness of the property and acknowledged that the heirs chose not to pursue it for economic reasons and legal advice. On August 4, 1976, the trial court determined that the property was not a newly discovered asset, vacated the reopening order, revoked the appellant's letters of administration, and dismissed the citation proceedings against the appellee. The appellant contended this dismissal was erroneous, arguing that the reopening was justified under section 308a, which allows for reopening if a newly discovered asset or unsettled portion of the estate is identified. However, the court found that the property was not newly discovered, as the administrator and heirs had prior knowledge of it, thus supporting the trial court's conclusion.
Appellant argued for a reinterpretation of section 308a to allow reopening of an estate whenever a court discovers an asset post-closure, not just when discovered by heirs or administrators. This interpretation lacked supporting authority and contradicted the explicit language of section 308a, which allows reopening only upon petition from an interested party, not sua sponte by the court. Additionally, the trial court was already aware of the asset through the estate's final account, meaning it was not newly discovered. Consequently, appellant could not change her argument on appeal, as the theory presented in the lower court was that the asset was newly discovered, not an unsettled portion of the estate. Furthermore, the trial court found that appellant did not timely assert her rights, indicating she had sufficient opportunity to pursue the asset before the estate’s closure but failed to do so. Thus, the characterization of the asset as undiscovered was upheld. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.
