Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Springfield Marine Bank v. Forsyth
Citations: 57 Ill. App. 3d 965; 15 Ill. Dec. 472; 1978 Ill. App. LEXIS 2232; 373 N.E.2d 818Docket: No. 14632
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; March 6, 1978; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Mabel F. Hunter's will, executed before her death on August 5, 1974, specifically devised four farms to the University of Illinois and designated their use. One farm was allocated for the College of Agriculture as an experimental farm, while the other three were to enhance a trust for scholarships in the same college. A separate farm was devised to the Sidney United Church, which was also named the residuary legatee to fund the construction of a new church. At her death, crops were still growing on the farms. The executor sought court direction regarding the proceeds from the unharvested crops. The circuit court ruled on July 5, 1977, that crop proceeds would be split between the University and the Church, allocating 208/365 of the proceeds to the University and 157/365 to the Church based on the period before and after Mrs. Hunter's death. The total value of the crops was $103,559.60. The University appealed, claiming entitlement to the full amount, emphasizing that the Church had no actual interest in the crops or land. The court referenced Section 5(3) of the Principal and Income Act, which entitles specific legatees to income from their devised property during administration, minus related expenses. A precedent case, In re Estate of Sawyer, supported this interpretation, distinguishing between specific devises and common law principles. A growing crop that has not been harvested is considered part of the land and typically passes with the property unless explicitly reserved otherwise. In the case of Ellsworth, a testator's corn crop was ruled to be part of the realty at his death, passing to the devisee rather than becoming part of the probate estate. The Sidney United Church argued that the interests in the unharvested crops represented rent from a crop share lease, suggesting an apportionment under the Principal and Income Act. However, the record did not indicate any lease arrangement, and the court determined whether the crop proceeds would go entirely to the devisee, entirely to the executor, or proportionately to both. Following established legal principles, the court held that the proceeds pass entirely to the devisee unless the will states otherwise. The court interpreted Section 5(3) of the Principal and Income Act in line with previous rulings, affirming that accruing rent associated with realty passes with the property unless explicitly reserved. Consequently, the circuit court's judgment was reversed, and the court entered a judgment of $103,559.60 in favor of the University.