{
  "id": 5731510,
  "name": "CURTIS SMITH, Indiv. and as Father and Next Friend of Lacanda Smith, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LANETTA SMITH, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "2005-07-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 4-04-1047",
  "first_page": "790",
  "last_page": "794",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "358 Ill. App. 3d 790"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "666 N.E.2d 16",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "21",
          "parenthetical": "\"[alpproving a ward's settlement is more than a mere matter of recording the parties' agreement\""
        },
        {
          "page": "21",
          "parenthetical": "trial court \"must make a judicial determination that the settlement is in the best interest of the ward\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 Ill. App. 3d 76",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        150239
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "84-85",
          "parenthetical": "\"[alpproving a ward's settlement is more than a mere matter of recording the parties' agreement\""
        },
        {
          "page": "85"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/281/0076-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 U.S. 650",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        8299530
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1890,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "680"
        },
        {
          "page": "1059"
        },
        {
          "page": "648"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/134/0650-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "397 N.E.2d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "59"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. App. 3d 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5605121
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "101"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/78/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "501 N.E.2d 254",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "262",
          "parenthetical": "court approval is mandatory \"because it is intended to substitute a judicial determination for the guardian's personal discretion in order to provide additional protection to the ward\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 Ill. App. 3d 965",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3462798
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "976",
          "parenthetical": "court approval is mandatory \"because it is intended to substitute a judicial determination for the guardian's personal discretion in order to provide additional protection to the ward\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/149/0965-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "634 N.E.2d 411",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "414"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 Ill. App. 3d 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2850303
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "146"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/262/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "652 N.E.2d 1051",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1057",
          "parenthetical": "\"guardian of a minor's estate cannot effectuate settlement without court approval of that settlement\""
        },
        {
          "page": "1057"
        },
        {
          "page": "1057"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 Ill. App. 3d 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        258758
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "571",
          "parenthetical": "\"guardian of a minor's estate cannot effectuate settlement without court approval of that settlement\""
        },
        {
          "page": "571"
        },
        {
          "page": "571"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/273/0563-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "738 N.E.2d 964",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "968"
        },
        {
          "page": "968"
        },
        {
          "page": "969"
        },
        {
          "page": "970"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ill. App. 3d 1023",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1096659
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1026"
        },
        {
          "page": "1027"
        },
        {
          "page": "1028"
        },
        {
          "page": "1030"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/316/1023-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "787 N.E.2d 827",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "832"
        },
        {
          "page": "832"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 Ill. 2d 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        609708
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "134"
        },
        {
          "page": "134"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/204/0127-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 467,
    "char_count": 8099,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.757,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.647286614453783e-08,
      "percentile": 0.352462247799003
    },
    "sha256": "0de3e87d3a0d8ed01c6018a4cb52d98469434ea28e2f877ada1199c164df17e5",
    "simhash": "1:bb1ddd10ab64ad44",
    "word_count": 1343
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:37:08.387494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CURTIS SMITH, Indiv. and as Father and Next Friend of Lacanda Smith, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LANETTA SMITH, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE TURNER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn January 2003, plaintiff, Curtis Smith, individually and as father and next friend of Lacanda Smith, filed a complaint against defendant, Lanetta Smith, to recover damages for injuries sustained by Lacanda in a vehicle accident. In June 2003, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. In December 2004, the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion and dismissed the complaint.\nOn appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. We reverse.\nI. BACKGROUND\nIn January 2003, plaintiff, individually and as father and next friend of Lacanda, filed a complaint against defendant. The complaint alleged that on August 1, 2002, Lacanda, then six years old, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by defendant, her mother, in Indiana. Thereafter, a one-car collision occurred, and Lacanda suffered personal injuries. The complaint alleged defendant\u2019s \u201ccareless and negligent acts and/or omissions\u201d were a proximate cause of the incident and Lacanda\u2019s injuries. Plaintiff sought judgment against defendant in excess of $50,000.\nIn June 2003, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619(a)(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2\u2014 619(a)(6) (West 2002)). The motion alleged that following the accident, defendant asserted a claim on her daughter\u2019s behalf against her own insurance coverage with American Family Mutual Insurance Company (American Family). The claim for Lacanda\u2019s injuries was submitted for payment under the uninsured-motorist-coverage provision of the policy. The motion stated the cause of action was settled, the parties were released, and Lacanda was compensated for her injuries. Defendant attached a copy of a release and trust agreement signed by defendant in the amount of $1,000, releasing and discharging American Family as to all claims resulting from the accident. The motion sought dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s complaint because it had been barred by prior release.\nIn October 2004, defendant filed an affidavit pursuant to section 25 \u2014 2 of the Probate Act of 1975 (Probate Act) (755 ILCS 5/25 \u2014 2 (West 2002)), stating (1) she was Lacanda\u2019s mother, (2) Lacanda\u2019s personal estate did not exceed $10,000, (3) no representative had been appointed for Lacanda\u2019s estate, and (4) defendant was the parent or person standing in loco parentis to Lacanda.\nIn December 2004, the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. The court found defendant and her insurance company had reached a settlement under the uninsured-motorist coverage, she executed an affidavit pursuant to the Probate Act, and the cause of action had been previously released or satisfied. The court dismissed plaintiffs complaint with prejudice. This appeal followed.\nII. ANALYSIS\nPlaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the complaint. We agree.\nIn reviewing a section 2 \u2014 619 dismissal, this court must decide \u201cwhether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u201d Saichek v. Lupa, 204 Ill. 2d 127, 134, 787 N.E.2d 827, 832 (2003). The standard of review of a section 2 \u2014 619 dismissal is de novo. Saichek, 204 Ill. 2d at 134, 787 N.E.2d at 832.\n\u201cUnder Illinois law, a minor is a ward of the court when he is involved in litigation, and the court has a duty and broad discretion to protect the minor\u2019s interests.\u201d Wreglesworth v. Arctco, Inc., 316 Ill. App. 3d 1023, 1026, 738 N.E.2d 964, 968 (2000). The court\u2019s duty is reflected in section 19 \u2014 8 of the Probate Act, requiring the court to approve or reject a claim of the ward. 755 ILCS 5/19 \u2014 8 (West 2002) (\u201cBy leave of court ***, a representative may compound or compromise any claim or any interest of the ward *** in any personal estate *** upon such terms as the court directs\u201d); see also Ott v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital, 273 Ill. App. 3d 563, 571, 652 N.E.2d 1051, 1057 (1995) (\u201cguardian of a minor\u2019s estate cannot effectuate settlement without court approval of that settlement\u201d). Further, \u201ca parent has no legal right, by virtue of the parental relationship, to settle a minor\u2019s cause of action, and court review and approval of a settlement reached by a parent also is mandatory.\u201d Ott, 273 Ill. App. 3d at 571, 652 N.E.2d at 1057; see also Wreglesworth, 316 Ill. App. 3d at 1027, 738 N.E.2d at 968; Meyer v. Naperville Manner, Inc., 262 Ill. App. 3d 141, 146, 634 N.E.2d 411, 414 (1994); Burton v. Estrada, 149 Ill. App. 3d 965, 976, 501 N.E.2d 254, 262 (1986) (court approval is mandatory \u201cbecause it is intended to substitute a judicial determination for the guardian\u2019s personal discretion in order to provide additional protection to the ward\u201d); Mastroianni v. Curtis, 78 Ill. App. 3d 97, 101, 397 N.E.2d 56, 59 (1979). Therefore, \u201cany settlement of a minor\u2019s claim is unenforceable unless and until there has been approval by the probate court.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Wreglesworth, 316 Ill. App. 3d at 1028, 738 N.E.2d at 969.\nIn the case sub judice, defendant contends the trial court approved of her settlement with American Family by virtue of the affidavit filed pursuant to section 25 \u2014 2 of the Probate Act (755 ILCS 5/25 \u2014 2 (West 2002)). Section 25 \u2014 2 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:\n\u201cUpon receiving an affidavit that the personal estate of a ward does not exceed $10,000 in value, that no representative has been appointed for his estate [,] and that the affiant is a parent or a person standing in loco parentis to the minor ***, any person or corporation indebted to or holding personal estate of the ward may pay the amount of the indebtedness or deliver the personal estate to the affiant.\u201d 755 ILCS 5/25 \u2014 2 (West 2002).\nThis section, however, is geared toward the person or corporation indebted to or holding property of a ward. It does not indicate the filing of an affidavit acts as a bypass to the need for court approval of a minor\u2019s claim. Section 25 \u2014 2 allows the payor to discharge its obligation pursuant to a properly filed affidavit, but it does not obviate the need for the court to approve of a minor\u2019s settlement.\nA trial \u201c \u2018court, whose duty it is to protect the interests of the infant, should see to it that they are not bargained away by those assuming, or appointed, to represent him.\u2019 \u201d Ott, 273 Ill. App. 3d at 571, 652 N.E.2d at 1057, quoting Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U.S. 650, 680, 33 L. Ed. 1047, 1059, 10 S. Ct. 638, 648 (1890). Here, the section 25 \u2014 2 affidavit did not act as the trial court\u2019s stamp of approval. See In re Guardianship of Mabry, 281 Ill. App. 3d 76, 84-85, 666 N.E.2d 16, 21 (1996) (\u201c[alpproving a ward\u2019s settlement is more than a mere matter of recording the parties\u2019 agreement\u201d). The court\u2019s order does not reveal whether the court approved the terms of the settlement or whether it was in the minor\u2019s best interest. See Mabry, 281 Ill. App. 3d at 85, 666 N.E.2d at 21 (trial court \u201cmust make a judicial determination that the settlement is in the best interest of the ward\u201d).\nFurther, the agreement released American Family from all claims and was only signed by defendant on behalf of her daughter. The release does not identify defendant as a party subject to the release. Parties not specifically identified as subject to the release cannot rely upon that release as a defense. Wreglesworth, 316 Ill. App. 3d at 1030, 738 N.E.2d at 970. As the statutory requirement of court approval has not been met and defendant was not identified as the subject of the release, the trial court erred in granting defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nReversed.\nSTEIGMANN and McCULLOUGH, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE TURNER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John D. McFetridge, of Manion, Devens, McFetridge & Schum, Ltd., of Danville, for appellant.",
      "Robert M. Gottschalk, of Hinshaw & Culbertson, L.L.P., of Champaign, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CURTIS SMITH, Indiv. and as Father and Next Friend of Lacanda Smith, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LANETTA SMITH, Defendant-Appellee.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201404\u20141047\nOpinion filed July 19, 2005.\nJohn D. McFetridge, of Manion, Devens, McFetridge & Schum, Ltd., of Danville, for appellant.\nRobert M. Gottschalk, of Hinshaw & Culbertson, L.L.P., of Champaign, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0790-01",
  "first_page_order": 808,
  "last_page_order": 812
}