{
  "id": 2783444,
  "name": "David Taylor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Ex'r, et al., Defendant.-(Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Exr, Defendant-Appellant.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co.",
  "decision_date": "1975-02-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 59244",
  "first_page": "610",
  "last_page": "613",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 Ill. App. 3d 610"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "52 N.E.2d 453",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 Ill.App. 55",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2423379
      ],
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/321/0055-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 F.Supp. 493",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        1532617
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/260/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 N.E.2d 68",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 Ill.App.2d 395",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1596865
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/107/0395-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 372,
    "char_count": 6624,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.725,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.896602053381583e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5353893219257184
    },
    "sha256": "0b72a56886d1c4ae1f265e2d7d3a42f4a7d523cecaf2705b3ed28f83b42a787a",
    "simhash": "1:8ed2e4ad164e973e",
    "word_count": 1078
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:35:11.694582+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "David Taylor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Ex\u2019r, et al., Defendant.\u2014(Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Exr, Defendant-Appellant.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDavid Shandling borrowed $15,100 on October 3, 1969, from David Taylor, which was to be repaid on October 24, 1969. Being unable to pay, Shandling assigned to Taylor on February 12, 1970, a $15,100 interest in a $500,000 debt due Shandling from respondent, Champion Screw Company, under a memorandum agreement dated April 15, 1969. On April 6, 1970, David Shandling died testate. Letters testamentary were issued to the executor, Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Company of Chicago. Within 7 months the executor filed its inventory, including the net proceeds due decedent from Champion Screw Company, but did not include the assigned property. On July 28, 1970, petitioner Taylor filed his claim against the decedent\u2019s estate, which claim was allowed at first as a 7th class claim, but which the trial court subsequently held to be a nullity.\nThe executor and Champion refused to acknowledge Taylor\u2019s right to the assigned property because the executor\u2019s attorney wanted a court determination of said right. On December 16, 1971, petitioner Taylor filed his action for a declaratory judgment seeking to establish the validity of the assignment of the $15,100. An amended petition for declaratory relief was filed on June 30, 1972. On or about August 16, 1972, the executor filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition, alleging that it constituted a claim against decedent\u2019s estate and was barred, having been filed more than 7 months after issuance of letters testamentary. The executor relied on section 204 of the Probate Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 3, par. 204), which provides:\n\u201cAll claims against the estate of a decedent, except expenses of administration and surviving spouse\u2019s or child\u2019s award, not filed within 7 months from the issuance of letters testamentary or of administration, are barred as to the estate which has been inventoried within 7 months from the issuance of letters.\u201d\nThe trial court entered an order in favor of the petitioner, David Taylor, finding that decedent had executed a valid and subsisting inter vivos assignment and that petitioner was entitled to recover $15,100 from the Champion Screw Company, the executor being barred and foreclosed from recovering said sum. In so ruling the trial court denied the executor\u2019s motion to dismiss the amended petition. The executor appealed.\nThe issues on appeal are as follows:\n(1) Whether section 204 of the Illinois Probate Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 3) applies to petitioners action for declaratory relief; and\n(2) Whether a cause of action brought under section 187(a) of said Probate Act must be filed within the time limits prescribed by said section 204.\nThe executor contends that pursuant to section 2(j) of article 1 of the Probate Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 3, par. 2(j)) the term \u201cclaim\u201d includes any cause of action and therefore applies to an action for declaratory relief as is here involved. The executor also contends that the prior assignment by the decedent to petitioner, Taylor, could have been alleged and should have been presented to the court at the time of the filing of petitioners claim and the petitioner\u2019s failure to do so at any time within the 7-month claim period bars him from further pursuing this action.\nThe petitioner replies that the issues submitted by the executor have been rendered moot by the decision of the trial court that the petitioner had obtained from the decedent a valid inter vivos assignment of a $15,100 portion of a larger debt due decedent from Champion. The appellant does not object to the trial court\u2019s decision relating to the inter vivos assignment. The assigned share of the debt, having passed to petitioner during decedent\u2019s lifetime, became the property of petitioner and could not pass to decedent\u2019s estate. The executor had no lawful right to said share, and its attempt to \u201cinventory\u201d it was a nullity. Since petitioner was not claiming any asset of the estate, therefore there can be no issue with respect to the timely filing of a claim. (Ie re Estate of Toigo, 107 Ill.App.2d 395, 246 N.E.2d 68 (1969); Russell v. United States, 260 F.Supp. 493 (N.D. Ill. 1966); Oliver v. Crook, 321 Ill.App. 55, 52 N.E.2d 453 (1943).) The petitioner\u2019s action is not a claim against the estate.\nSection 187 (a) of the Probate Act applies to personal property claimed by a third party in the administration of a probate estate and gives said court the authority to determine the right of ownership of such property. A proceeding which places in issue decedent\u2019s title to specific assets is not considered to be a \u201cclaim\u201d in the context of probate law. It is not subject to the statute limiting the time in which to file claims.\nSections 1 \u2014 201(4) of the Uniform Probate Code (Uniform Laws Annotated (1972)) provides; \u2018The term [claims] does not include * * * disputes regarding title of a decedent * * * to specific assets alleged to be included in the estate.\u201d Therefore petitioner\u2019s instant action is not a claim and is not subject to the limitation of said section 204.\nSince the assigned property was not inventoried, section 204, which bars claims only with respect to \u201cinventoried estate,\u201d is inapplicable to the instant appeal. This action for declaratory judgment was prompted by the efusal of the executor and Champion to honor the assignment without a court determination of its validity and not by the executor s inventorying of petitioner\u2019s assigned property.\nThe executor, as authority for its proposition that petitioner filed his action untimely, cites older cases which have been distinguished and criticized, and have been held not to be authority for such proposition.\nIn the instant case the existence of the inter vivos assignment is an undisputed fact. It having been executed during decedent\u2019s lifetime, decedent then effectively parted with the property assigned, and his executor had no right to claim the assigned property as an asset of the estate.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nBURMAN and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sherwin & Sherwin, of Chicago (Theodore R. Sherwin and Marvin A. Brusman, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Harry Hoffman and Irving Hoffman, both of Chicago (Hoffman & Hoffman, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "David Taylor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Ex\u2019r, et al., Defendant.\u2014(Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Exr, Defendant-Appellant.)\n(No. 59244;\nFirst District (4th Division)\nFebruary 13, 1975.\nRehearing denied April 4, 1975.\nSherwin & Sherwin, of Chicago (Theodore R. Sherwin and Marvin A. Brusman, of counsel), for appellant.\nHarry Hoffman and Irving Hoffman, both of Chicago (Hoffman & Hoffman, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0610-01",
  "first_page_order": 636,
  "last_page_order": 639
}