{
  "id": 5381567,
  "name": "In re ESTATE OF JACKIE LLOYD COSLET, Deceased.-(EVELYN COSLET et al., Appellants, v. TUSCOLA NATIONAL BANK, Adm'r of the Estate of Jackie Lloyd Coslet, Deceased, Appellee.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Coslet v. Tuscola National Bank",
  "decision_date": "1976-06-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 13253",
  "first_page": "305",
  "last_page": "307",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 Ill. App. 3d 305"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "250 N.E.2d 281",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 Ill. App. 2d 251",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1592953
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/111/0251-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.E.2d 43",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ill. App. 3d 1085",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2841538
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/3/1085-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 N.E.2d 699",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ill. 2d 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2713409
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/7/0106-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.E.2d 76",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill. App. 3d 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2786593
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/26/0291-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 5269,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.856,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.951361178129343e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5014238281845775
    },
    "sha256": "b6fd83081684a3de16c3f4103b9dbea94a5fb89d4bddddb121d3bb73390e7515",
    "simhash": "1:71bb9d933427dcd5",
    "word_count": 853
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:11.874495+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re ESTATE OF JACKIE LLOYD COSLET, Deceased.\u2014(EVELYN COSLET et al., Appellants, v. TUSCOLA NATIONAL BANK, Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Jackie Lloyd Coslet, Deceased, Appellee.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAs administrator of the estate of Jackie Lloyd Coslet, the Tuscola National Bank, pursuant to an agreement with Coslet\u2019s widow and sole heir, Linda Kay Coslet, sold certain joint tenancy property and held the proceeds pending court approval of an administrator\u2019s report. That report, filed January 31, 1975, recommended distribution of one-half the proceeds of sale of joint tenancy property to Linda Coslet. Between Jackie Coslet\u2019s death and the filing of the administrator\u2019s report, Linda Coslet had been found guilty of voluntary manslaughter of her husband. On the basis of that conviction, Jackie Coslet\u2019s mother and sister, appellants herein, filed a petition objecting to any distribution of funds, joint tenancy or otherwise, to Linda Coslet.\nThe circuit court initially allowed the objectors\u2019 request as to distribution of the joint tenancy funds, but approved the remainder of the administrator\u2019s report and allowed *1000 in attorney fees. Pursuant to the administrator\u2019s petition, however, the circuit court reheard the matter of the joint tenancy funds, and on March 11, 1975, allowed the requested distribution to Linda Coslet. At the same time, the trial court reaffirmed the order of *1000 in attorney fees. The objectors herein filed a notice of appeal from that decision on March 17, 1975.\nPrior to the rehearing, objectors had, on March 6,1975, filed a petition to remove the administrator and attorney for the estate. On April 22,1975, after notice of appeal from its March 11 decision had been filed, the trial court ruled it was without jurisdiction to entertain the motion to remove the administrator and attorney, in view of the pending appeal.\nThe- objectors raise three issues before this court. First, on the basis of Linda Coslet\u2019s criminal conviction, they challenge the trial court\u2019s decision to distribute one-half the joint tenancy property to her. Second, they argue that the attorney fees approved by the trial court represent in part work for interest conflicting with and antagonistic to the interest of the estate. Third, they ask this court to consider the correctness of the trial court\u2019s ruling, entered subsequent to the filing of notice in this case, that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition to remove the administrator and attorney.\nTaking the last of these contentions first, we note that this court has no authority to consider questions arising after the notice of appeal was filed. (Cygnar v. Martin-Trigona, 26 Ill. App. 3d 291, 325 N.E.2d 76.) Consequently, the propriety of the trial corut\u2019s ruling on the petition to remove the administrator and attorney is not before this court.\nMoreover, we consider the question of Linda Coslet\u2019s right to one-half the joint tenancy funds closed, in view of the constitutional prohibition against forfeiture of estate by virtue of a criminal conviction (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a711) and the supreme court\u2019s holding in Bradley v. Fox, 7 Ill. 2d 106, 129 N.E.2d 699. That case clearly establishes the surviving joint tenant\u2019s right to retain his or her interest in joint tenancy property, regardless of his or her felonious killing of the other joint tenant.\nObjectors\u2019 final contention is based on Raymond Lee, Jr.\u2019s role as both attorney for the administrator, Tuscola National Bank, and defense counsel for Linda Coslet in her criminal trial. They challenge the $1000 awarded Raymond Lee on the grounds that it represents, at least in part, payment for representation for interests conflicting and antagonistic to the estate. Since the trial court had pending before it, at the time of rehearing, a motion to remove the attorney and administrator, it was incumbent upon the court to consider that motion before reaffirming the award of attorney fees. Conflict of interest with the estate may constitute cause for removal of an attorney under the Probate Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 3, par. 1 et seq.), provided that conflict is sufficient. (In re Estate of Phillips, 3 Ill. App. 3d 1085, 280 N.E.2d 43; In re Estate of Benson, 111 Ill. App. 2d 251, 250 N.E.2d 281.) Had Linda Coslet been convicted of murder, she would have forfeited her right to inherit from her victim. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 3, pars. 15a, 49a.) Consequently, the outcome of the criminal trial necessarily affected the distribution of estate property. It was for the trial court to determine whether Lee\u2019s representation of a potential heir to the estate, in a criminal proceeding which could affect disposition of the estate, was a conflict sufficient to constitute good cause for removal.\nConsequently, we remand to the trial court for consideration of the charges of conflict of interest and a reconsideration of attorney fees in light of its finding on the conflict question.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nTRAPP, P. J., and SIMKINS, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stephen Davis, of Charleston, for appellants.",
      "Lemna & Lee, of Tuscola (Raymond Lee, Jr., and Emerson L. Moore, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re ESTATE OF JACKIE LLOYD COSLET, Deceased.\u2014(EVELYN COSLET et al., Appellants, v. TUSCOLA NATIONAL BANK, Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Jackie Lloyd Coslet, Deceased, Appellee.)\nFourth District\nNo. 13253\nOpinion filed June 17, 1976.\nStephen Davis, of Charleston, for appellants.\nLemna & Lee, of Tuscola (Raymond Lee, Jr., and Emerson L. Moore, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0305-01",
  "first_page_order": 333,
  "last_page_order": 335
}