{ "id": 2475078, "name": "In re ESTATE OF EVA MAY SMITH, Deceased (Darl Bollman, Ex'r of the Will of Eva May Smith, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Perry Manor, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellees (Lifecare Center of Pinckneyville, Inc., Respondent-Appellant))", "name_abbreviation": "Bollman v. Perry Manor, Inc.", "decision_date": "1990-05-16", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201488\u20140092", "first_page": "400", "last_page": "404", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "198 Ill. App. 3d 400" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "401 N.E.2d 1049", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 Ill. App. 3d 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3223967 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/82/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "315 N.E.2d 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 Ill. App. 3d 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5346481 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/20/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 N.E.2d 337", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "409 Ill. 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5310494 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/409/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 Ill. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3153214 ], "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "218" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/177/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 N.E.2d 361", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 2d 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5251650 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/40/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "147 N.E.2d 287", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "12 Ill. 2d 625", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2778436 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/12/0625-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 N.E.2d 293", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 Ill. 2d 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5354381 ], "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/26/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "471 N.E.2d 530", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 Ill. App. 3d 1029", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3526432 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/128/1029-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 N.E.2d 186", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Ill. App. 3d 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2718329 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/37/0334-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 424, "char_count": 7760, "ocr_confidence": 0.756, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.558295532089874e-08, "percentile": 0.44849545282369746 }, "sha256": "2fb4adfcd895f373541b8ef6001d574c27c321a6c3deb15edf8a9b0908564a8c", "simhash": "1:e30b54d7d6f43fa6", "word_count": 1286 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:28.995518+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re ESTATE OF EVA MAY SMITH, Deceased (Darl Bollman, Ex\u2019r of the Will of Eva May Smith, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Perry Manor, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellees (Lifecare Center of Pinckneyville, Inc., Respondent-Appellant))." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HOWERTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nEva May Smith died. Her will provided for a legacy to \u201cPERRY MANOR, INC., Pinckneyville, Illinois.\u201d\nPerry Manor, Inc., a Nevada corporation, operated a nursing home called Perry Manor in Pinckneyville. Before Eva May Smith died, Perry Manor, Inc., sold the nursing home in Pinckneyville to Lifecare Center of Pinckneyville, Inc. Lifecare continued to operate the nursing home in Pinckneyville and continued to call it Perry Manor.\nSmith\u2019s executor filed a petition to construe the will, claiming that there was a latent ambiguity, saying that the apparent intention of Eva May Smith was to make a charitable bequest in support of the operation of the nursing home in Pinckneyville, not for the general purpose of the corporation Perry Manor, Inc.\nThe circuit court dismissed the petition. Lifecare appeals. We affirm.\nWe ignore the portions of the executor\u2019s petition that purport to know the intention of Eva May Smith. Those statements are speculative. To consider them as creating a latent ambiguity would have the same effect as rewriting the will.\nIn determining the propriety of the circuit court\u2019s dismissal of the executor\u2019s petition, our sole task is to determine whether the factual allegations of the petition to construe the will set forth facts which, if proved, would create a latent ambiguity in the will. (Wooded Shores Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Matthews (1976), 37 Ill. App. 3d 334, 345 N.E.2d 186; Goldberg v. Ruskin (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 1029, 471 N.E.2d 530.) We, therefore, are to compare the allegations of the petition to the provisions of the will.\nIf the petition to construe the will states facts which, if proved, show a latent ambiguity, then a hearing must be held in which evidence extrinsic to the will is taken to determine if there is a latent ambiguity. If it is determined that no latent ambiguity exists, then the petition is dismissed. If it is determined that a latent ambiguity does exist, then a full hearing is held in which evidence extrinsic to the will is admitted to determine the intent of the testator. Weir v. Leafgreen (1962), 26 Ill. 2d 406, 186 N.E.2d 293; Hays v. Illinois Industrial Home for the Blind (1958), 12 Ill. 2d 625, 147 N.E.2d 287.\nIf, on the other hand, the petition does not state facts which, if true, warrant relief, then a hearing is unnecessary.\nThere is no latent ambiguity in the will, because the petition does not allege that there is more than one Perry Manor, Inc., or that the Perry Manor, Inc., referred to in the will is not the appellee.\nLifecare relies on First National Bank v. Home of the Good Shepherd (1963), 40 Ill. App. 2d 31, 189 N.E.2d 361, and Hays v. Illinois Industrial Home for the Blind (1958), 12 Ill. 2d 625, 147 N.E.2d 287. These cases, however, show why the petition did not state facts that would raise a latent ambiguity.\nGood Shepherd involved a legacy to the \u201cHome of the Good Shepherd, of the City of Peoria, Illinois.\u201d The executor petitioned to construe the will, because he could not find an organization by the name \u201cHome of the Good Shepherd, of the City of Peoria, Illinois.\u201d The petition was answered by \u201cHome of the Good Shepherd, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation,\u201d which claimed to be the legatee. The court held that a hearing had to be held under these circumstances, because the petition stated facts, which if proved, would create a latent ambiguity. Extrinsic evidence should have been allowed to show that \u201cHome of the Good Shepherd, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation,\u201d was one and the same as \u201cHome of the Good Shepherd, of the City of Peoria, Illinois.\u201d First National Bank v. Home of the Good Shepherd (1963), 40 Ill. App. 2d 31, 189 N.E.2d 361.\nIn the case at bar, there is no claim that Perry Manor, Inc., cannot be found.\nIn Good Shepherd, the petition to construe alleged that \u201cHome of the Good Shepherd, of the City of Peoria, Illinois,\u201d and \u201cHome of the Good Shepherd, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation,\u201d were not one and the same organization.\nIn the case at bar, the petition does not allege that Perry Manor, Inc., is not the same organization as \u201cPERRY MANOR, INC., Pinckneyville, Illinois.\u201d\nIn addition, the words \u201cPinckneyville, Illinois\u201d in Eva May Smith\u2019s will are descriptive terms and are not part of the proper name. In the will, all proper names are typed in upper case letters, while all descriptions are typed in the lower case. The face of the will shows that the named legatee was \u201cPERRY MANOR, INC.,\u201d while \u201cPinckneyville, Illinois,\u201d merely described the location of the named legatee at the time of execution. This interpretation is further reinforced by section 4.05 of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 32, par. 4.05), which requires a foreign corporation to end its name with the word corporation, company, incorporated, or limited, or an abbreviation of such words. Both Perry Manor, Inc., and Lifecare Services of Pinckneyville, Inc., end their names with the required statutory abbreviation.\nTherefore, Good Shepherd does not control the instant case; the words \u201cPinckneyville, Illinois\u201d are merely descriptive of location and are not part of the proper name of the legatee.\nIn the second case Lifecare relies upon, Hays, the petition stated that the purported legatee, \u201cThe Illinois Industrial Home for the Blind (commonly called Lighthouse for the Blind), 1900 Marshall Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois,\u201d in reality was two separate entities. This statement caused the petition to state facts that, if proved, would establish a latent ambiguity, therefore making necessary a hearing in which evidence extrinsic to the will would be admitted.\nIn the case at bar, there is no such allegation.\nThe executor\u2019s petition says that it is believed that if the testator had known that the nursing home in Pinckneyville would have been operated by Lifecare instead of Perry Manor, Inc., then she would have changed her will. Illinois is a fact-pleading State. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2\u2014601.) This allegation clearly is not one of fact.\nA court cannot surmise what provision testator would have put in the will had a change in the circumstances surrounding the creation of the will been anticipated. McFarland v. McFarland (1898), 177 Ill. 208, 218; Vollmer v. McGowan (1951), 409 Ill. 306, 99 N.E.2d 337.\nAfter the circuit court had dismissed the original petition, the executor asked leave to file an amended petition. The circuit court denied that motion. Lifecare appeals the denial of the executor\u2019s motion. Lifecare does not have standing to pursue an appeal of this portion of the circuit court\u2019s ruling, because the motion was not Lifecare\u2019s but was the executor\u2019s, and Lifecare did not join in the motion. Wells v. Web Machinery Co. (1974), 20 Ill. App. 3d 545, 315 N.E.2d 301.\nLastly, Lifecare attempted to file its own petition, but failed to get leave of the court. Lifeline\u2019s new petition, therefore, must be disregarded on review. Hallmark Personnel, Inc. v. Pickens-Kane Moving & Storage Co. (1980), 82 Ill. App. 3d 18, 401 N.E.2d 1049.\nThe order of the circuit court dismissing the executor\u2019s petition is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nLEWIS, P.J., and RARICK, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HOWERTON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Sorling, Northrup, Hanna, Cullen & Cochran, Ltd., of Springfield (T. Kent Cochran and Michael C. Connelly, of counsel), for appellant.", "Lackey & Warner, P.C., of Centralia (George C. Lackey, of counsel), for appellee Perry Manor, Inc." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re ESTATE OF EVA MAY SMITH, Deceased (Darl Bollman, Ex\u2019r of the Will of Eva May Smith, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Perry Manor, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellees (Lifecare Center of Pinckneyville, Inc., Respondent-Appellant)).\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201488\u20140092\nOpinion filed May 16, 1990.\nSorling, Northrup, Hanna, Cullen & Cochran, Ltd., of Springfield (T. Kent Cochran and Michael C. Connelly, of counsel), for appellant.\nLackey & Warner, P.C., of Centralia (George C. Lackey, of counsel), for appellee Perry Manor, Inc." }, "file_name": "0400-01", "first_page_order": 422, "last_page_order": 426 }