## Facts

- Willie Jolliff became completely disabled after a 1977 motor vehicle accident and remained disabled until his death in 1999.
- Edith Porter, Willie’s sister, was appointed conservator of his person and estate in 1977 and later cared for him in her home from 1987 until his death.
- During the guardianship period, Porter received conservator and helper fees from Willie’s guardianship estate.
- Willie died intestate; Cheryl Jolliff, his adult daughter, was appointed independent administrator of the estate.
- Porter filed a $200,000 custodial claim under section 18-1.1 of the Illinois Probate Act (a caregiver-compensation provision) alleging she provided full-time, live-in care for a “100%” disabled person for more than three years.
- The estate moved to dismiss, asserting the statute was unconstitutional because it limited claims to “immediate family” caregivers and imposed disability-based minimum claim amounts.

## Issues

1. Whether limiting the statutory custodial claim to “immediate family” caregivers violates Illinois equal protection guarantees or the special legislation clause.
2. Whether disability-based minimum award amounts constitute arbitrary classifications under equal protection or the special legislation clause.
3. Whether the statute violates substantive due process by creating an arbitrary claim against an estate.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court held section 18-1.1 constitutional.
- The court applied rational-basis review because no fundamental right or suspect classification was implicated.
- The court reversed the circuit court’s declaration of unconstitutionality and dismissal of Porter’s claim.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under Illinois law, equal protection and special legislation challenges to non-suspect, non-fundamental-right classifications are evaluated under deferential rational-basis review.
- A statute benefiting a defined group is constitutional if any reasonably conceivable set of facts provides a rational basis for distinguishing the benefited class from those excluded.
- Limiting caregiver-compensation claims to “immediate family” members can be rationally related to legitimate interests such as recognizing likely uncompensated caregiving, deterring marginal or fraudulent claims, and reducing administrative burdens in estate administration.
- Setting minimum compensation levels based on degree of disability may be upheld as a permissible legislative generalization that reasonably correlates increased impairment with increased caregiving demands and promotes predictability in probate administration.
- A probate statute satisfies substantive due process if it is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and is not arbitrary or oppressive.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court sustained the caregiver-compensation provision as a rational legislative response to family-provided custodial care and the administration of estates, rejecting equal protection, special legislation, and substantive due process attacks and reinstating the caregiver’s statutory claim for further proceedings.


In re Estate of Jolliff, 199 Ill. 2d 510, 771 N.E.2d 346 (Ill. 2002)