## Facts

- Grace Ellis executed a 1964 will naming her parents as primary beneficiaries and, if she died without descendants, naming Shriners Hospitals for Children as a contingent beneficiary.
- In 1999, Ellis executed a new will naming her pastor, James G. Bauman, as sole primary beneficiary and her heirs at law as contingent beneficiaries.
- Ellis died in 2003 at age 86, leaving no direct descendants and an estate exceeding $2 million.
- The 1999 will was admitted to probate in Cook County, and Bauman was appointed independent executor.
- Shriners did not learn of its contingent interest under the 1964 will until 2006, when Bauman filed the 1964 will during separate litigation involving Ellis’s heirs.
- Shriners filed a petition in 2006 asserting, among other theories, a tort claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance, alleging undue influence, fraud, and substantial inter vivos transfers benefiting Bauman.

## Issues

1. Whether the six-month limitations period in section 8-1 of the Illinois Probate Act, applicable to petitions contesting a will’s validity, also bars a tort claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance based on related alleged misconduct.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and remanded.
- The court held that section 8-1’s six-month limitations period for will contests does not apply to a tort claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance.
- The tort claim could proceed for further proceedings in the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- Section 8-1 of the Illinois Probate Act applies to actions contesting the validity of a will and does not, by its terms, govern distinct tort claims seeking damages for interference with an inheritance expectancy.
- Intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance is analytically distinct from a will contest and requires proof of additional elements (including an expectancy, intentional interference, and resulting damages).
- The tort serves as a limited remedy generally available only when probate relief has been pursued and exhausted or is unavailable or inadequate to provide complete relief.
- A will contest may be inadequate where alleged misconduct includes substantial inter vivos transfers or where the claimant could not reasonably discover the expectancy within the probate contest period.
- The decision did not establish the specific statute of limitations for the tort; it held only that the Probate Act’s six-month will-contest period does not control.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court held that the Probate Act’s six-month deadline for will contests does not bar a separate claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance, and it allowed the charity’s tort claim to proceed where probate remedies plausibly could not provide complete relief.


In re Estate of Ellis, 236 Ill. 2d 45, 923 N.E.2d 237 (Ill. 2009)