In re Estate of Kramer

2026 IL App (2d) 250277-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: February 17, 2026
• Docket: 2-25-0277
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2026 IL App (2d) 250277-U No. 2-25-0277 Order filed February 17, 2026

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

In re ESTATE OF RONALD N. KRAMER (Kathy Kokoruz and Samuel Kramer, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Sandy A. Kramer, as Executor of the Estate of Ronald N. Kramer, Respondent-Appellant.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County. Honorable Joseph M. Grady, Judge, Presiding. No. 20-P-232

JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hutchinson and Jorgensen concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The trial court did not err in granting petitioners’ renewed motion to enforce a settlement agreement between the parties.

¶2 Respondent Sandy A. Kramer, as Executor of the Estate of Ronald N. Kramer, appeals the

order of the trial court granting petitioners Kathy Kokoruz and Samuel Kramer’s renewed motion

to enforce a settlement agreement between the parties. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 A more thorough recitation of facts may be found in our previous disposition. In re Estate

of Kramer, 2024 IL App (2d) 230602-U. We recite only those facts necessary for the resolution of

this appeal. ¶5 Ronald Kramer died on January 23, 2020, and left a will dated January 2, 2020. At the

time of his death, Ronald was going through divorce proceedings with his third wife, Diane.

Ronald and Diane did not have any children together. His three children—Sandy, Kathy, and

Samuel—were born during his first marriage. Diane and Ronald lived at a home in Batavia during

their marriage. Diane moved out of the house in 2017 and filed for divorce in March 2018.

Ronald’s will only made reference to divorce proceedings with an unnamed person and did not

mention Diane by name.

¶6 On May 8, 2020, Sandy filed a petition for probate of the will. The will left Sandy the

entirety of Ronald’s estate and named her the executor. The will specifically disinherited Kathy

and Samuel “[d]ue to prior generosity shown by” Ronald.

¶7 On June 10, 2020, the trial court ordered the will admitted to probate. On June 18, 2020,

Diane filed a renunciation of the will. On July 17, 2020, Kathy and Samuel petitioned for formal

proof of will.

¶8 In August 2020, Sandy, Kathy, and Samuel negotiated a settlement. Sandy’s attorney

prepared a written settlement agreement, which stated that it was between Sandy, Kathy, and

Samuel, and contained signature lines for each of the three siblings (the Family Settlement

Agreement). The Family Settlement Agreement provided that each sibling would receive a one-

third share of Ronald’s net estate, Kathy and Samuel would dismiss their petition for formal proof

of the will with prejudice, and Sandy would remain as executor of the estate. One of the recitals

stated that Diane had filed a renunciation of Ronald’s will and that “[t]he parties anticipated Diane

Kramer will withdraw her Petition to Renounce ***.”

¶9 On August 13, 2020, the trial court entered an order stating that the parties had “resolved

the issues relating to the Petition for Formal Proof of Will by way of settlement.” The order

-2- continued the case until September 16, 2020, “for entry of an Agreed Order and/or status on the

Petition to Renounce.”

¶ 10 On October 6, 2020, Kathy and Samuel’s attorney emailed Sandy’s attorney, stating:

“I had a meeting with Kathy and Sam re: the settlement agreement and they will both sign

it. With regards to the items that Sam accused Sandy of taking from the property, they

include: guns, ammunition, gun cleaning supplies, tools, antique tackle box, and fishing

items and fishing lure collection. Kathy and Sam would also like a list of what was taken

from the gun safe and Ron’s desk.

Moving forward, both Kathy and Sam are concerned about the maintenance of the property

[the Batavia home] and the plan for preparing it for sale. With Sandy living and working

out of state, is she going to hire outside help? Although relationships are strained, I think

Sam, being local, would likely help where needed. I’m not sure how Diane will fit into all

of this either.”

Sandy’s attorney apparently did not respond. On November 2, 2020, Kathy and Samuel’s attorney

followed up, saying, “I’m following up on my email from October 6th re: Kathy and Sam agreeing

to sign the family settlement agreement and requesting the additional information about Sandy

preparing the property for sale, etc. I think we have court next week on this matter.”

¶ 11 On February 2, 2021, Kathy and Samuel signed the Family Settlement Agreement.

¶ 12 In March 2021, Sandy told Kathy and Samuel that she would not sign the Family

Settlement Agreement “unless and until” Samuel apologized to Sandy for accusing her of stealing

items of Ronald’s personal property. On March 24, 2021, Samuel sent a text message to Sandy

stating, “Sorry for accusing you for taking dads guns.”

-3- ¶ 13 On April 12, 2021, Sandy’s attorney sent a letter to Kathy and Samuel’s attorney, stating

that “notwithstanding this letter, my client remains willing to sign a Family Settlement Agreement

with Kathy granting her 1/3 of the net estate.” The letter went on to detail concerns with Samuel’s

use of Ronald’s Batavia home, including apparent illegal burning and dumping waste product on

the property. The letter also accused Samuel of stealing “several major items of personal property”

from the home. Based on these concerns, the letter stated that Sandy “is not saying that Sam’s

interest is totally terminated, but there must be some accounting that may affect his percentage

going forward.”

¶ 14 On May 17, 2021, Sandy filed a petition requesting that a recovery citation be issued to

Samuel for personal property he allegedly took from Ronald’s estate. On May 20, 2021, Samuel

filed a motion for bill of particulars in response to Sandy’s petition, seeking to know what personal

property Sandy believed he wrongfully took.

¶ 15 On June 17, 2021, Kathy and Samuel filed a motion to enforce the Family Settlement

Agreement, arguing that there was a meeting of the minds between the parties, the settlement had

been committed to writing, and Sandy’s reluctance to sign the agreement was not a basis to modify

the agreement. In response, Sandy argued that the initial proposed Family Settlement Agreement

was merely for purposes of negotiation and that the parties contemplated adding Diane to any

settlement agreement, so there was no meeting of the minds.

¶ 16 On December 15, 2021, the trial court entered an order setting a hearing on the motion to

enforce on February 1, 2022. Thereafter, the hearing date was continued numerous times for

several years.

¶ 17 On March 29, 2023, Sandy filed a “Motion to Dismiss or Order of Estoppel for

Renunciation of Will.” On July 19, 2023, the trial court entered an order estopping Diane from

-4- renouncing the will, which formed the basis for the first appeal in this matter. This court reversed

the trial court order, determining that Sandy did not prove the elements required to establish

promissory estoppel. Kramer, 2024 IL App (2d) 230602, ¶¶ 25-26.

¶ 18 On November 12, 2024, following remand, Kathy and Samuel filed a renewed motion to

enforce the Family Settlement Agreement, again arguing that there was a meeting of the minds

between the parties and that the settlement was not contingent on Diane withdrawing her

renunciation. In response, Sandy again argued that the settlement was contingent on Diane

withdrawing her renunciation and that the agreement was a draft not signed by all parties. On

February 10, 2025, the trial court granted the motion to enforce the Family Settlement Agreement

after a hearing. It found that there was a meeting of the minds and that Diane’s “agreement to

renounce the will was not a condition of settlement.” The trial court’s written order included a

finding that there was no just reason to delay an appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a)

(eff. Mar. 8, 2016). After unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration of the trial court’s ruling, Sandy

timely appealed.

¶ 19 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 20 Sandy argues on appeal that the trial court erred in enforcing the Family Settlement

Agreement because there was no valid and enforceable contract between the parties. The

enforcement and construction of a settlement agreement is governed by contract law. Lampe v.

O’Toole, 292 Ill. App. 3d 144, 146 (1997). An offer, acceptance, and consideration are the basic

ingredients of a contract. Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School, 69 Ill. 2d 320, 329 (1977).

Additionally, there must also be a meeting of the minds or mutual assent to the terms of a contract

for it to be enforceable. Arbogast v. Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, 2021 IL App (1st) 210526,

¶ 20. We will not disturb the trial court’s finding of a valid and enforceable settlement agreement

-5- unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Lampe, 292 Ill. App. 3d at 146. A judgment

is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. In re

Estate of Glassman, 257 Ill. App. 3d 102, 107 (1993).

¶ 21 Sandy first argues that the Family Settlement Agreement lacked consideration because the

settlement was contingent on Diane withdrawing her renunciation of Ronald’s will. Consideration

consists of “the bargained-for exchange of promises or performances, and may consist of a

promise, an act or forbearance.” Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., LLC, 2012 IL 113204, ¶ 23.

“ ‘Any act or promise which is of benefit to one part or disadvantage to the other is sufficient

consideration to support a contract.’ ” Id. (quoting Steinberg, 69 Ill. 2d at 330).

¶ 22 Here, the Family Settlement Agreement is supported by ample consideration by all three

parties. Kathy and Samuel agreed to dismiss their petition for formal proof of will with prejudice,

while Sandy agreed to give Kathy and Samuel interest in Ronald’s estate that was entirely

bequeathed to Sandy. This mutual forbearance is sufficient to constitute consideration under

Illinois law. See Sopris Concrete, LLC v. Meeks, 2022 IL App (2d) 210331, ¶ 24.

¶ 23 Sandy similarly argues that Diane’s withdrawal of her renunciation was a condition

precedent to settlement and that Diane was a contemplated party to the settlement. A “condition

precedent” is an act that must be performed or an event that must occur before a contract becomes

effective or before a party is required to perform. Cathay Bank v. Accetturro, 2016 IL App (1st)

152783, ¶ 32. Conditions precedent are generally not favored, and courts will only enforce a

condition precedent when it is expressed in a plain and unambiguous statement. Beal Bank Nevada

v. Northshore Center THC, LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 151697, ¶ 29. When construing a contract, the

primary objective is to give effect to the contracting parties’ intent and we look to the plain and

-6- ordinary meaning of the language in the contract as the best indication of their intent. Village of

Kirkland v. Kirkland Properties Holdings Company, LLC I, 2023 IL 127612, ¶ 63.

¶ 24 Here, Sandy argues that the recital stating that “the parties anticipated Diane Kramer will

withdraw her Petition to Renounce” expressed a condition precedent to their settlement. However,

such language is not a clear and unambiguous indication that Diane’s withdrawal of her

renunciation was a condition precedent to settlement, but rather an indication of the parties’ belief

that Diane would withdraw her renunciation. Putting that recital into context with the other two

recitals shows that it is part of a summary of the procedural posture of the case when the agreement

was reached. Those two other recitals stated that Diane was appointed executor of Ronald’s estate

under his will, that Kathy and Samuel filed a petition for formal proof of will. There is no language

in the recitals, or anywhere else in the agreement, indicating that the settlement is contingent on

Diane withdrawing her renunciation.

¶ 25 There is also no evidence that Diane was intended to be a party to the settlement. The

Family Settlement Agreement unambiguously states that it is between Sandy, Kathy, and Samuel,

and only contains three signature lines, one for each of them. The communications from Sandy’s

attorney also make this clear, as Diane (or her attorney) was not included in the communications,

nor was she mentioned as part of the settlement. Indeed, Diane stated in an affidavit responsive to

Sandy’s estoppel motion that she had never talked to Sandy regarding the probate proceedings.

While Diane’s name was mentioned in the October 6, 2020, email from Kathy and Samuel’s

attorney, it was not in reference to settlement but rather her possible involvement in preparing

Ronald’s home for sale. Thus, Diane was not intended to be a party to the Family Settlement

Agreement and the withdrawal of her renunciation was not a condition precedent to settlement.

-7- ¶ 26 Sandy next raises two similar arguments: that the Family Settlement Agreement is

unenforceable because it was not signed by all parties and that there was no meeting of the minds.

As Sandy acknowledges, it is possible to form a binding written contract without signatures if the

parties show mutuality or assent through their acts or conduct. Hedlund and Hanley, LLC v. Board

of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, 376 Ill. App. 3d 200, 206 (2007). “A meeting

of the minds between the parties will occur where there has been assent to the same things in the

same sense on all essential terms and conditions.” Pritchett v. Asbestos Claims Mgmt. Corp., 332

Ill. App. 3d 890, 896 (2002). Sandy contends that the discussions between the parties demonstrate

“a clear breakdown in negotiations” and there were no actions showing a meeting of the minds.

We disagree.

¶ 27 The record shows that Kathy and Samuel agreed to the terms of the Family Settlement

Agreement negotiated by the parties and drafted by Sandy’s attorney, and they later signed that

agreement. Sandy also expressed the intent to sign the agreement and an order drafted by Sandy’s

attorney indicating that the parties had settled their claims was entered by the trial court. These

acts plainly demonstrate assent by the parties. “We have long recognized that an agreement to

settle pending litigation is effective when arrived at.” Lampe, 292 Ill. App. 3d at 148. However,

Sandy withheld her signature, seemingly based on personal disagreements with Samuel, as they

accused each other of stealing items from Ronald’s property. Such personal disagreement does

not evidence a lack of a meeting of the minds, but rather an attempt to change the terms of the

settlement to which she agreed.

¶ 28 Further, the email communications between the parties’ attorneys do not show continued

negotiations or a lack of a meeting of the minds, as Sandy contends. Rather, the emails show that

Samuel and Kathy accepted the terms of the settlement, then Sandy tried to back out. The October

-8- 6, 2020, email accepted the Family Settlement Agreement that was written by Sandy’s attorney.

Sandy’s attorney apparently did not respond to this email, and all future communications show

only that Sandy was attempting to withdraw or change the agreement as to Samuel’s share. For

example, the April 12, 2021, email from Sandy’s attorney reiterated that Sandy would settle with

Kathy but wanted to lower Samuel’s share. That email, though, acknowledged that Samuel had an

interest in the estate and, if Sandy got her way, it would not be “totally terminated” but his

percentage may be affected “going forward.” Simply put, there is no evidence of ongoing

negotiations, only Sandy’s attempts to change the settlement she reached with her siblings.

¶ 29 Finally, Sandy argues that there was no agreement because the October 6, 2020, email was

a counteroffer that she did not accept. However, nothing in that email suggests that a counteroffer

was proposed. As previously noted, the email addressed three topics: acceptance of the Family

Settlement Agreement by Kathy and Samuel; items of personal property alleged to have been

removed from Ronald’s home; and preparation for selling the home. Nothing in the

communication proposed adding or altering terms to the Family Settlement Agreement. Thus,

there was no counteroffer necessitating Sandy’s acceptance.

¶ 30 Accordingly, the trial court’s decision to enforce the Family Settlement Agreement was not

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 31 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 32 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County.

¶ 33 Affirmed.

-9-