{
  "id": 2461653,
  "name": "In re JOHN R. LUNDAHL, Alleged Disabled Person (Keith E. Roberts, Sr., Guardian of the Estate of John R. Lundahl, Appellant; Paul Didzerekis, Appellee)",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Lundahl",
  "decision_date": "1990-07-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 2\u201489\u20140860",
  "first_page": "108",
  "last_page": "112",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "200 Ill. App. 3d 108"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "169 Ill. App. 3d 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3550114
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "646"
        },
        {
          "page": "646"
        },
        {
          "page": "646"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/169/0641-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 3d 874",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2657041
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "879-80"
        },
        {
          "page": "879-80"
        },
        {
          "page": "880"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/186/0874-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 Ill. App. 3d 1109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 409,
    "char_count": 8671,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08108078887996945
    },
    "sha256": "4778357967ef58e95a36b9482fe8510e706185b6a985d023748ad7bf57083b2b",
    "simhash": "1:9bf8d1626c0e9c77",
    "word_count": 1416
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:01:37.473766+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re JOHN R. LUNDAHL, Alleged Disabled Person (Keith E. Roberts, Sr., Guardian of the Estate of John R. Lundahl, Appellant; Paul Didzerekis, Appellee)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE INGLIS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe guardian of the estate (guardian) of John R Lundahl, a disabled person, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Du Page County awarding attorney fees to Paul Didzerekis, the attorney for Mr. Lundahl\u2019s adult children. The guardian contends that the trial court erred in awarding the fees because guardians of the person and the estate were already appointed to represent Mr. Lundahl\u2019s interests. In addition, the guardian argues that the court erred in failing to conduct a hearing on the reasonableness of the fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.\nOn November 15, 1988, attorneys Paul Didzerekis and Bob Chew filed a petition seeking to have Mr. Lundahl declared a disabled person. On December 14, 1988, the trial court entered an agreed order in which it found that Mr. Lundahl suffered from Alzheimer\u2019s dementia and declared him a disabled person. The court appointed Keith Roberts to serve as the guardian of Mr. Lundahl\u2019s estate, and appointed Leslie Robbins and Elizabeth Lundahl, Mr. Lundahl\u2019s wife, to be coguardians of the person.\nOn December 23, 1988, Mr. Lundahl\u2019s adult children filed a petition seeking to have Leslie Robbins appointed as the plenary guardian of the person of Mr. Lundahl. The petition alleged that Elizabeth Lundahl\u2019s marriage to Mr. Lundahl was \u201cclearly voidable under Illinois Law\u201d and that it would be in Mr. Lundahl\u2019s best interests to preclude Elizabeth from acting as his guardian of the person. On December 27, 1988, the trial court entered an order appointing Leslie Robbins the plenary guardian of the person of Mr. Lundahl.\nOn January 25, 1988, Elizabeth Lundahl filed a notice of appeal of the trial court\u2019s order appointing Leslie Robbins the plenary guardian of the person of Mr. Lundahl. On October 23, 1989, this court affirmed the trial court\u2019s order. In re Lundahl (1989), 188 Ill. App. 3d 1109 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).\nOn June 1, 1989, attorney Paul Didzerekis, counsel for Mr. Lundahl\u2019s adult children, filed a petition for attorney fees. Didzerekis requested the court to award him $9,350 in fees, $131.50 in costs, and $368.75 in paralegal services from Mr. Lundahl\u2019s estate. This fee petition, which totalled $9,850.25, was for time Didzerekis spent prior to the trial court\u2019s orders appointing guardians in this case. On July 17, 1989, Didzerekis filed an amended petition for attorney fees. The amended petition included work performed after the guardians were appointed, and requested fees of $14,600, costs of $86.57, and $868.75 for paralegal services, for a total of $15,555.32. Thus, Didzerekis requested that the court award him $25,405.57 in fees and costs for his representation in this matter.\nA hearing on Didzerekis\u2019 fee petition, along with the fee petitions of other counsel of record, was held on July 24, 1989. At the hearing, the attorney for the guardian of the estate stated: \u201cIn the case of Mr. Didzerekis\u2019 [sic] and Mr. Chew, it is the position of the Estate that from December 27, 1988 on, we believe that there should not be fees or costs awarded and for the monies sought by these individuals prior to that date, we have no objection to the reasonableness and the legitimacy of their Petition.\u201d Didzerekis responded by claiming that the fee petitions did not include matters relating solely to representing Mr. Lundahl\u2019s adult children\u2019s interests, but instead related solely to matters benefitting the estate.\nOn July 26, 1989, the trial court entered an order awarding Didzerekis $25,405.57 in attorney fees and costs. The court stated:\n\u201cThis is a very unique situation. Some of the uniqueness of the situation is another judge has determined the necessity of guardianship, both estate and person.\nIt\u2019s a hard-fought litigation. It\u2019s an expensive litigation. My gut reaction is that here is a disabled person funding litigation. My gut churns. Probably a typical example of why the legal system is criticized.\nI have reflected further and I have learned long ago that any little protest I might make on behalf of justice can have very little effect.\nFor me to allow some fees and disallow other fees might very well constitute a comment on the merits or demerits of the litigants\u2019 different positions, those positions having been determined by other judges and to be determined by still other judges.\n* * *\nTherefore, it\u2019s the order of the Court that all fee petitions are allowed.\u201d\nThe guardian filed a timely notice of appeal.\nInitially, we note that the guardian is apparently contesting the entire fee amount which the trial court awarded to Didzerekis. However, the guardian\u2019s position at the hearing on Didzerekis\u2019 fee petition was that Didzerekis was entitled to the fees earned before December 27, 1988 (the date that the guardian was appointed), which amounted to $9,850.25. Given that the guardian agreed with Didzerekis\u2019 request during the hearing for fees prior to December 27, 1988, we see no reason to disturb this award. Thus, we will limit our review to the award of $15,555.32 in fees for legal services provided after December 27,1988.\nThe guardian\u2019s first contention on appeal is that Didzerekis was not entitled to attorney fees because two court-appointed guardians were already protecting Mr. Lundahl\u2019s interests. Thus, the guardian argues that Didzerekis had no statutory basis to request attorney fees from Mr. Lundahl\u2019s estate.\nDidzerekis disagrees, arguing instead that In re Estate of Thompson (1989), 186 Ill. App. 3d 874, controls the disposition of this issue. In Thompson, the court determined that it was proper to award attorney fees to the attorney who represented the family of the disabled person. (186 Ill. App. 3d at 879-80.) The court noted that the award of attorney fees is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. (186 Ill. App. 3d at 879-80, citing In re Estate of Kutchins (1988), 169 Ill. App. 3d 641, 646.) The Thompson court found no abuse of discretion because the attorney for the guardian of the estate requested that an attorney be appointed to avoid a potential conflict of interest situation. 186 Ill. App. 3d at 880.\nWe find Thompson to be distinguishable from the present case in one crucial respect: namely, the guardian in the case at bar never requested Didzerekis\u2019 services due to a possible conflict of interest between Mr. Lundahl and his adult children. Furthermore, there was no indication that a conflict of interest existed in this case. Thus, Thompson is inapplicable to the present case because there was no indication that separate representation by Didzerekis for Mr. Lundahls\u2019 adult children was necessary to protect Mr. Lundahl\u2019s interests.\nWe agree with the guardian that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Didzerekis where Mr. Lundahl\u2019s interests were already adequately protected. To rule otherwise would require Mr. Lundahl\u2019s estate to pay Didzerekis\u2019 attorney fees even though his services after December 27, 1988, were not requested or otherwise needed to protect Mr. Lundahl\u2019s interests.\nWe find support for our decision in In re Estate of Kutchins (1988), 169 Ill. App. 3d 641. In Kutehins, the appellate court determined that an attorney was not entitled to be compensated by the estate for drafting an agreement between the disabled person and his family. (169 Ill. App. 3d at 646.) The court noted that the attorney never requested or received permission to represent the disabled person beyond the restoration proceedings and thus was not entitled to receive compensation from the estate for these services. 169 Ill. App. 3d at 646.\nGiven that we have determined that the trial court erred in awarding Didzerekis attorney fees for his work performed after December 27, 1988, we need not address the guardian\u2019s other argument concerning the reasonableness of the fees.\nFor the above-stated reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed with respect to the fee award of $9,850.25 for work performed prior to December 27, 1988. The award of $15,555.32 in fees for work performed after December 27, 1988, is reversed.\nAffirmed in part; reversed in part.\nWOODWARD and GEIGER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE INGLIS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mark W. Damisch, of Barclay, Damisch & Sinson, Ltd., of Wheaton, and Junie L. Sinson, of Barclay, Damisch & Sinson, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Paul P. Didzerekis, of Wheaton, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re JOHN R. LUNDAHL, Alleged Disabled Person (Keith E. Roberts, Sr., Guardian of the Estate of John R. Lundahl, Appellant; Paul Didzerekis, Appellee).\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201489\u20140860\nOpinion filed July 19, 1990.\nMark W. Damisch, of Barclay, Damisch & Sinson, Ltd., of Wheaton, and Junie L. Sinson, of Barclay, Damisch & Sinson, of Chicago, for appellant.\nPaul P. Didzerekis, of Wheaton, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0108-01",
  "first_page_order": 130,
  "last_page_order": 134
}