## Facts

- John R. Webster was married to Edythe Webster, who predeceased him; Webster was stepfather to Edythe’s daughters, Betty Hardy Williams and Edith L. Hardy.
- Webster executed a will leaving his estate to Betty and Edith, and providing that any property not otherwise effectively disposed of would pass to his stepgrandson, Robert Bruce Williams.
- The will was witnessed by George W. Williams (Betty’s husband) and Muriel E. Williams (Robert’s wife).
- George W. Williams was named executor of the estate.
- After Webster’s death, Edith L. Hardy challenged the gifts to Betty and Robert, relying on Illinois Probate Act § 4-6, which voids a beneficial legacy or interest given to a person attesting the will’s execution or to that witness’s spouse (unless the will is otherwise duly attested by a sufficient number of witnesses exclusive of the interested witness).
- The circuit court of Cook County (probate) ruled that the legacy to Betty and the contingent residuary legacy to Robert lapsed under § 4-6 and ordered the entire estate distributed to Edith.
- George W. Williams, as executor, appealed, arguing that applying § 4-6 to lapse the gifts was unconstitutional and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983). The State of Illinois appeared as appellee to defend the statute.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois Probate Act § 4-6 validly voids (and causes to lapse) a legacy or interest left to a beneficiary whose spouse attested the will, where the will was not otherwise duly attested by a sufficient number of disinterested witnesses.
2. Whether applying § 4-6 in this probate proceeding violates constitutional protections.
3. Whether enforcement of § 4-6 by the probate court supports a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed the probate court’s order of distribution.
- The court held that § 4-6 was valid as applied and required the gifts to Betty Hardy Williams and Robert Bruce Williams to lapse because their spouses served as attesting witnesses and the statutory saving condition was not met.
- The court rejected the executor’s constitutional objections to § 4-6.
- The court also rejected the executor’s claim that § 4-6 (or its enforcement) violated the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983).
- As a result, the distribution remained: the entire estate passed to Edith L. Hardy.

## Legal Principles

- The State may set mandatory formal requirements for the execution and proof of wills, including rules limiting or voiding gifts to attesting witnesses and, by statute, to a witness’s spouse.
- Under Illinois Probate Act § 4-6, a beneficial legacy or interest given to an attesting witness or that witness’s spouse is void unless the will is otherwise duly attested by a sufficient number of witnesses exclusive of the interested witness.
- When the statutory prerequisites for a testamentary gift are not satisfied, the probate court must apply the statute as written, even if the result defeats the testator’s apparent intent.
- A constitutional challenge to a probate-execution formality fails absent a showing that the legislature lacked a legitimate basis for the rule or that the rule operates in an unconstitutional manner.
- Application of a facially neutral state probate statute in a routine probate proceeding, without more, does not establish a deprivation that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

## Conclusion

Estate of Webster affirmed an order distributing the entire estate to Edith L. Hardy after holding that Illinois Probate Act § 4-6 voided and caused to lapse gifts to Betty Hardy Williams and Robert Bruce Williams because their spouses attested the will; the appellate court rejected the executor’s constitutional attacks and his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.


Estate of Webster, 574 N.E.2d 245, 214 Ill. App. 3d 1014, 158 Ill. Dec. 451 (1991)