{ "id": 4277572, "name": "In re ESTATE OF CHARLES RAY HOCH, Deceased (Michelle I. Girardin, Independent Ex'x, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael Allen Hoch, Respondent-Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "In re Estate of Hoch", "decision_date": "2008-05-19", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201407\u20140614", "first_page": "866", "last_page": "871", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "382 Ill. App. 3d 866" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "826 N.E.2d 413", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "425" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 Ill. App. 3d 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3750454 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/356/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "659 N.E.2d 89", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 Ill. App. 3d 785", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 927698 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "788" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/276/0785-01" ] }, { "cite": "826 N.E.2d 1089", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1094" }, { "page": "1094" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 Ill. App. 3d 749", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3748653 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "754" }, { "page": "753" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/356/0749-01" ] }, { "cite": "851 N.E.2d 857", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "860" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "366 Ill. App. 3d 345", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4265328 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "347" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/366/0345-01" ] }, { "cite": "729 N.E.2d 36", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "40" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 Ill. App. 3d 1087", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 411612 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1091" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/312/1087-01" ] }, { "cite": "791 N.E.2d 175", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "182" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 Ill. App. 3d 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2468233 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "593" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/339/0586-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 672, "char_count": 14271, "ocr_confidence": 0.843, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.2470388291678665e-08, "percentile": 0.3301534182108687 }, "sha256": "4d6e32b96a969317fcb6463ff60dbd5e456663f8f22cb6bd4b4606c22520252f", "simhash": "1:9267fda7c3c1d514", "word_count": 2311 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:27:01.752924+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re ESTATE OF CHARLES RAY HOCH, Deceased (Michelle I. Girardin, Independent Ex\u2019x, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael Allen Hoch, Respondent-Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE TURNER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn January 2007, petitioner, Michelle I. Girardin, filed a petition for letters testamentary in the circuit court of Champaign County along with the purported will of Charles Ray Hoch. The court thereafter admitted the will to probate and appointed Girardin as independent executrix. In February 2007, respondent, Michael Allen Hoch, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to enjoin Girardin from performing any duties as independent executrix as he had been appointed independent administrator of Charles\u2019 estate in civil district court in Louisiana. The circuit court of Champaign County sua sponte vacated its order admitting the will to probate, revoked Girardin\u2019s letters of office, and dismissed this action because of the pending Louisiana case.\nOn appeal, Girardin argues the circuit court erred in sua sponte dismissing her Illinois action to administer Charles\u2019 estate because of a similar action pending in Louisiana. We affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\nInitially, the parties involved in this appeal necessitate an introduction. Charles Ray Hoch died on May 17, 2006, in New Orleans, Louisiana. He was survived by his mother, Joanne Hoch, and his siblings, Mary Ann Moore, Michael Hoch, Richard Hoch, and Katherine Ottney, all of whom are residents of Illinois. At the time of his death, Charles was living in New Orleans with Girardin, a resident of Louisiana.\nIn July 2006, Michael Hoch was appointed independent administrator of his brother\u2019s estate in civil district court in New Orleans pursuant to Louisiana law. Michael filed a petition for possession, claiming Charles died leaving no valid will. The petition indicated Charles left a will that was invalid under Louisiana law and attached the will as an exhibit. Michael asked that the will be declared invalid and that succession be opened under the laws of intestate proceedings. Thereafter, Girardin entered her appearance in the Louisiana proceeding.\nIn November 2006, Girardin filed an answer to the petition for possession in Louisiana, claiming the attached will was valid under Illinois law, that Charles was a resident of Champaign County, and Gi-rardin would present the will for probate in Illinois. Girardin filed the will in Champaign County on November 17, 2006, including a certification that the will was on file in the civil district court for the Parish of Orleans.\nIn January 2007, Girardin filed a petition for letters testamentary in Champaign County, stating Charles\u2019 will named her as executrix and as beneficiary. Girardin attached the same document purported to be Charles\u2019 will as Michael had attached to his petition for possession in Louisiana. The petition stated Charles\u2019 estate consisted of $450,000 in stock in Big Easy Pawn Shop, Inc., real estate, and miscellaneous assets. Charles\u2019 alleged will was signed on March 11, 1999, in New Orleans, and he left his entire estate to Girardin. Two other family members were named as contingent beneficiaries. Charles indicated he was a resident of Champaign County. He also directed his personal representative to \u201ctake all actions legally permissible to have the probate of [his] will done as simply and as free of court supervision as possible under the laws of the state having jurisdiction over this will.\u201d Girardin did not reference the Louisiana proceedings in her petition. In the circuit court of Champaign County, Judge Leonhard admitted Charles\u2019 will to probate and appointed Girardin as independent executrix.\nIn February 2007, Michael filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in Champaign County. He alleged Charles was not a resident of Illinois and only resided in his mother\u2019s home on a temporary basis following the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Michael claimed the will filed in Champaign County was improperly executed and was invalid because it did not conform to the requirements of Louisiana law. Michael also claimed Charles\u2019 mother and siblings would inherit his estate under Louisiana law and Girardin filed her petition for letters testamentary to bypass the law and improperly inherit the estate.\nMichael also filed a petition for revocation of letters of office and a motion to vacate the order admitting the will to probate. Girardin filed a motion to dismiss Michael\u2019s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.\nFollowing arguments by both parties, the circuit court of Cham-paign County found it readily apparent that an action between the same parties and for the same cause was then pending in Louisiana. On its own motion, the court vacated the order admitting the will to probate and revoked Girar din\u2019s letters of office pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619(a)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Procedure Code) (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a)(3) (West 2006)). The court found the remaining motions moot and dismissed the case.\nIn March 2007, Girardin filed a motion to reconsider, arguing the circuit court\u2019s sua sponte dismissal under section 2 \u2014 619(a)(3) deprived her of her due-process rights to notice and the opportunity to present her claim. She argued Charles\u2019 will established prima facie evidence that he was an Illinois resident. She also noted Charles bought and registered his motor home in Illinois and listed a Champaign address as his residence. In June 2007, the court denied the motion. The court indicated it vacated the prior orders \u201cbecause the record at the time belatedly established that there was an action pending in Louisiana stemming from the death of [Charles] and that an estate representative had previously been appointed.\u201d The court adhered to its view \u201cthat the probate proceedings in this case were properly dismissed as a matter of judicial discretion in order to avoid both duplicative litigation and potentially conflicting rulings by two separate courts neither of which can hold sway over the other.\u201d This appeal followed.\nII. ANALYSIS\nGirardin argues the circuit court erred in dismissing her cause of action to administer Charles\u2019 will as the validity of the will should not be controlled by the intestate proceedings in Louisiana. We disagree.\nSection 2 \u2014 619(a)(3) of the Procedure Code allows for the dismissal of a cause of action if \u201cthere is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a)(3) (West 2006). The purpose of section 2 \u2014 619(a)(3) is to avoid duplicative litigation. In re Marriage of Epsteen, 339 Ill. App. 3d 586, 593, 791 N.E.2d 175, 182 (2003). \u201cIn its discretion, the trial court should consider four factors: (1) comity; (2) the prevention of multiplicity, vexation, and harassment; (3) the likelihood of obtaining complete relief in a foreign jurisdiction; and (4) the res judicata effect of a foreign judgment in the local forum.\u201d Hapag-Lloyd (America), Inc. v. Home Insurance Co., 312 Ill. App. 3d 1087, 1091, 729 N.E.2d 36, 40 (2000). On appeal, a circuit court\u2019s decision to dismiss pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619(a)(3) will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Continental Casualty Co. v. Radio Materials Corp., 366 Ill. App. 3d 345, 347, 851 N.E.2d 857, 860 (2006).\nIn the case sub judice, it is readily apparent that the Illinois and Louisiana actions involve the same parties. \u201cThe \u2018same parties\u2019 requirement of section 2 \u2014 619(a)(3) is satisfied \u2018where the litigants\u2019 interests are sufficiently similar, even though the litigants differ in name or number.\u2019 \u201d Combined Insurance Co. of America v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd\u2019s, London, 356 Ill. App. 3d 749, 754, 826 N.E.2d 1089, 1094 (2005), quoting Doutt v. Ford Motor Co., 276 Ill. App. 3d 785, 788, 659 N.E.2d 89, 92 (1995). Here, Charles\u2019 relatives and Girardin are actively involved in both actions with each side intimately interested in the disposition of Charles\u2019 estate.\nUnder section 2 \u2014 619(a)(3), \u201cactions involve the \u2018same cause\u2019 when the relief requested is based on substantially the same set of facts.\u201d Combined Insurance, 356 Ill. App. 3d at 753, 826 N.E.2d at 1094. In determining whether the two actions are for the same cause, \u201cthe crucial inquiry is whether both arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, not whether the legal theory, issues, burden of proof, or relief sought materially differs between the two actions.\u201d Jackson v. Callan Publishing, Inc., 356 Ill. App. 3d 326, 337, 826 N.E.2d 413, 425 (2005).\nHere, both court proceedings arose out of Charles\u2019 death. Michael\u2019s action in Louisiana sought the intestate distribution of Charles\u2019 estate. Girardin sought to probate Charles\u2019 will in her Illinois action. Both causes center on the validity of Charles\u2019 will and how his estate will be distributed once the validity of the will is determined. Thus, the actions pending involve the same parties for the same cause.\nGiven that the same parties and the same cause are involved in these actions, we now turn to the circuit court\u2019s decision to sua sponte dismiss Girardin\u2019s Illinois action pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619(a)(3). In this case, Michael initiated the matter in Louisiana by filing his petition for possession in July 2006. Girardin also became involved in the Louisiana action before filing her petition in Illinois in January 2007. Thus, the Louisiana action preceded the Illinois matter and was still pending. Further, having dual proceedings on the same matter risks the possibility of multiple and inconsistent rulings as to the proper distribution of Charles\u2019 estate. Such a result would be calamitous considering the separate jurisdictions and the complexities of enforcing inconsistent judgments.\nGirardin, however, argues the circuit court erred in dismissing her action, claiming section 2 \u2014 619(a)(3) of the Procedure Code does not override the Probate Act of 1975 (Probate Act) (755 ILCS 5/1 \u2014 1 through 30 \u2014 3 (West 2006)) and its provisions concerning the place of probate, the admission of a will to probate, and the administration of the estate. See 755 ILCS 5/1 \u2014 6, 5 \u2014 1, 6 \u2014 4, 7 \u2014 1 (West 2006). The Procedure Code applies to all proceedings under the Probate Act except as otherwise provided. 755 ILCS 5/1 \u2014 6 (West 2006). However, the provisions cited by Girardin do not mandate application of the Probate Act under the present circumstances.\nGirardin also argues the circuit court\u2019s dismissal denies the estate the procedural protections of the Probate Act and will require a greater burden in Louisiana courts. However, Girardin fails to explain why the Louisiana court cannot probate the alleged will based on Illinois law if appropriate. Louisiana law sets forth certain requirements for determining the validity of testamentary dispositions and for, if necessary, the probate of foreign wills. For example, article 3528 of the Louisiana Civil Code (La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3528 (West 1994)) states:\n\u201cA testamentary disposition is valid as to form if it is in writing and is made in conformity with: (1) the law of this state; or (2) the law of the state of making at the time of making; or (3) the law of the state in which the testator was domiciled at the time of making or at the time of death; or (4) with regard to immovables, the law that would be applied by the courts of the state in which the im-movables are situated.\u201d\nAlso, article 2888 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure (La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 2888 (West 2003)) states:\n\u201cA written testament subscribed by the testator and made *** in another state *** in a form not valid in this state, but valid under the law of the place where made, or under the law of the testator\u2019s domicile, may be probated in this state by producing the evidence required under the law of the place where made, or under the law of the testator\u2019s domicile, respectively.\u201d\nThese articles indicate the question of the validity of Charles\u2019 will can be determined in Louisiana courts. Moreover, the articles clearly reflect the significant importance of determining decedent\u2019s domicile. With regard to which state determines decedent\u2019s domicile, we note section 3 \u2014 202 of the Uniform Probate Code, which states as follows:\n\u201cIf conflicting claims as to the domicile of a decedent are made in a formal testacy or appointment proceeding commenced in this state, and in a testacy or appointment proceeding after notice pending at the same time in another state, the [c]ourt of this state must stay, dismiss, or permit suitable amendment in, the proceeding here unless it is determined that the local proceeding was commenced before the proceeding elsewhere. The determination of domicile in the proceeding first commenced must be accepted as determinative in the proceeding in this state.\u201d Uniform Probate Code, 8 U.L.A. 47, \u00a73 \u2014 202 (1997).\nIt has been stated that section 3 \u2014 202 \u201crequires that an interested person initiate litigation in the forum of his choice before litigation is started elsewhere or accept the risk of contesting decedent\u2019s domicile offered elsewhere.\u201d 31 Am. Jur. 2d Executors & Administrators \u00a7120, at 126 (2002). As Michael first initiated proceedings in Louisiana, the circuit court\u2019s dismissal here was proper.\nWe note Girardin has already questioned the Louisiana court\u2019s jurisdiction in her answer to the petition for possession. Girardin can only speculate that she will not succeed under the will if the matter proceeds in the civil district court for the Parish of Orleans. Instead, we find nothing to indicate justice cannot prevail in this case when fully presented to the courts of Louisiana. Given the parties involved and the nature of the cause, along -with the desire to avoid duplicative litigation, we find the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Girardin\u2019s Illinois action.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the circuit court\u2019s judgment.\nAffirmed.\nAPPLETON, P.J., and KNECHT, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE TURNER" } ], "attorneys": [ "John T. Phipps (argued), of John T. Phipps Law Offices, P.C., of Champaign, for appellant.", "James D. Green (argued), of Thomas, Mainer & Haughey, LLP, of Champaign, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re ESTATE OF CHARLES RAY HOCH, Deceased (Michelle I. Girardin, Independent Ex\u2019x, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael Allen Hoch, Respondent-Appellee).\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201407\u20140614\nArgued February 20, 2008.\nOpinion filed May 19, 2008.\nJohn T. Phipps (argued), of John T. Phipps Law Offices, P.C., of Champaign, for appellant.\nJames D. Green (argued), of Thomas, Mainer & Haughey, LLP, of Champaign, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0866-01", "first_page_order": 884, "last_page_order": 889 }