{
  "id": 5098999,
  "name": "In the Matter of Estate of Magdalene Doerfler, Deceased. William J. Doerfler, Appellant, v. Springfield Marine Bank, Executor of Will of Magdalene Doerfler, Deceased et al., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doerfler v. Springfield Marine Bank",
  "decision_date": "1952-11-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 9,839",
  "first_page": "347",
  "last_page": "351",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "348 Ill. App. 347"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "145 P. (2d) 376",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Cal. App. (2d) 772",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        4690623
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-app-2d/62/0772-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 F. (2d) 350",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1154233
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/130/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 Ill. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5004600
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/303/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 Ill. 626",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5585738
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/195/0626-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 340,
    "char_count": 5629,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1893780309677648e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5910051126532859
    },
    "sha256": "5096c4006f81352a69b46f72751919eaccf40a3a82b90822c9be370bc93b74ef",
    "simhash": "1:62f7ff8565450094",
    "word_count": 930
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:17.120334+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In the Matter of Estate of Magdalene Doerfler, Deceased. William J. Doerfler, Appellant, v. Springfield Marine Bank, Executor of Will of Magdalene Doerfler, Deceased et al., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Sangamon county sustaining objections to the approval of a final account of the Springfield Marine Bank, executor of the will of Magdalene Doerfler, deceased. The executor\u2019s final report as filed in the probate court computed the distributive share of William J. Doerfler, appellant, as one-third of the gross estate less funeral expenses, debts of the decedent and estate income taxes. Certain residuary beneficiaries filed objections in the probate court to this report with the contention that debts of the estate included costs of administration and federal estate taxes, which should also be deducted before determining William\u2019s share under the will.\nThe probate court overruled the objection and approved the executor\u2019s report but on appeal the circuit court held contrary. The circuit court ordered the executor to restate its final account and to deduct costs of administration and federal estate taxes before distributing one-third to William J. Doerfler, the husband of the decedent.\nThe facts are not in dispute. The will, in clause First thereof, orders and directs the executor to pay all \u201cmy just debts and funeral expenses.\u201d Clause Second provides \u201cafter the payment of such funeral expenses and debts, I give, devise and bequeath to my husband, William J. Doerfler, a one-third part of my estate and property of whatsoever kind and wheresoever situated.\u201d\nThe issue on this appeal is whether the executor may compute appellant\u2019s share of the estate after deducting the decedent\u2019s debts and funeral expenses, or if he must deduct expenses of the estate such as costs of administration and federal estate taxes as well. In other words do the words \u201call my just debts and funeral expenses \u2019 \u2019 as used in clause First and the reference to some words in clause Second include all claims and expenses in connection with the settlement and distribution of the estate ?\nIt is suggested by the appellees that section 10 of the Illinois Dower Act, which provides an interest for a surviving spouse \u201cafter the payment of all debts,\u201d has been uniformly construed by our courts to include in the word \u201cdebts\u201d costs of administration and taxes as well as those obligations incurred by the testator during his lifetime. Many cases to this effect are cited. (Laurence v. Batch, 195 Ill. 626; Zakroczymski v. Zakroczymski, 303 Ill. 264; Mayer v. Reinecke, 130 F. (2d) 350.)\nThe Dower Act is not involved in this case and the situations are not analogous. In construing the word \u201cdebts\u201d as used in the statute the courts were not called upon to consider a document drawn by a person in his lifetime and reading \u201cmy just debts and funeral expenses.\u201d As is contended by the appellant the reference to funeral expenses seems to imply that all of the debts of the testator (those contracted for during his lifetime) be paid, and in addition such additional expense as will be incurred by his estate by virtue of his death to the extent of the cost of his funeral. Her failure to include a reference to costs of administration and taxes as she did funeral expenses strongly implies that she did not want them included.\nIn re Owens Estate, 62 Cal. App. (2d) 772, 145 P. (2d) 376, a more comparable case was encountered. In the Owens case the testator left one-third of her \u201cmoneys left \u2014 after debts of testatrix are paid\u201d and the court held the phrase \u201cafter my debts are paid\u201d to be synonomous with \u201cdebts which I owe,\u201d and therefore did not include such expenses of the estate as funeral expenses and costs of administration. The court said at page 377:\n\u201cThe ordinary and grammatical meaning of \u2018my debts\u2019 is clear. The expression is equivalent to \u2018debts which I owe\u2019 and only by a strained interpretation could it be extended to include liabilities of the estate arising after the testatrix\u2019 death.\u201d\nThe appellees were apprised of the Owens case and offered no decision to the contrary. Our search has revealed no contrary holding.\nAppellee contends the testator having nominated a corporate executor must have done so knowing that charges would be incurred for such services and therefore this obligation was a debt incurred during her lifetime, though not accrued until after her death. This contention is not sound. The nomination of an executor in a will creates no obligation until the death of the testator and the appointment by the court. Certainly it could not be contended that the corporate executor had any rights until that time. It could have enforced no right during her lifetime.\nThe words employed are of common acceptance and use; and they have >a plain and understandable meaning. Under such conditions there is no occasion to surmise she did not mean to use the words in their usual and customary meaning. The order of the circuit court directing a restatement of the final account is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to approve the final report as filed.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Keith Dbessendobfeb, and Londbigan & Londbigan, all of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Hugh J. Graham, Jr., and Edward J. Murphy, both of Springfield, for certain appellee.",
      "Gillespie, Bubke & Gillespie, for certain appellee; Edmund Burke, of Springfield, of counsel.",
      "Leslie G. Peppbble, of Springfield, for certain other appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In the Matter of Estate of Magdalene Doerfler, Deceased. William J. Doerfler, Appellant, v. Springfield Marine Bank, Executor of Will of Magdalene Doerfler, Deceased et al., Appellees.\nGen. No. 9,839.\nOpinion filed November 14, 1952.\nReleased for publication December 10, 1952.\nKeith Dbessendobfeb, and Londbigan & Londbigan, all of Springfield, for appellant.\nHugh J. Graham, Jr., and Edward J. Murphy, both of Springfield, for certain appellee.\nGillespie, Bubke & Gillespie, for certain appellee; Edmund Burke, of Springfield, of counsel.\nLeslie G. Peppbble, of Springfield, for certain other appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0347-01",
  "first_page_order": 369,
  "last_page_order": 373
}