In re Estate of Rotheimer

2025 IL App (1st) 240976-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: February 21, 2025
• Docket: 1-24-0976
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2025 IL App (1st) 240976-U

SIXTH DIVISION February 21, 2025

No. 1-24-0976

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

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

ESTATE OF FILIP ROTHEIMER, ) ) Formerly Under Limited Guardianship, ) Appeal from the Now Deceased, ) Circuit Court of _____________________________________________ ) Cook County GABRIELLA SMILLIE, ) ) No. 2012 P 6822 Petitioner-Appellant, ) v. ) The Honorable ) Shauna L. Boliker, FLORENCE CORCORAN, ) Judge Presiding. ) Respondent-Appellee. )

PRESIDING JUSTICE TAILOR delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hyman and Gamrath concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. The court properly concluded that the

petitioner was not an “interested person” under the Probate Act and thus lacked standing to object

in this guardianship dispute.

¶2 I. BACKGROUND

¶3 This case is yet another in a long line of cases surrounding the estate and trust of Filip

Rotheimer. During his life, Filip owned and managed several residential and commercial No. 1-24-0976

properties that were held in land trusts under the direction of various limited liability companies.

In 1998, Filip formed the Filip Rotheimer Revocable Trust. In 2006, he executed a full will and

trust and distributed his assets as follows: 30% to his daughter, Silvia; 30% to his daughter,

Florence; 20% to his son, Phillip; and 20% to his grandchildren. The respondent, Gabriella Smillie,

an attorney who no longer practices law, is Silvia’s daughter and Filip’s granddaughter. In the

2006 will and trust, Gabriella was named successor executor after Silvia, and successor trustee

after Silvia and Florence. In September of 2012, however, Filip executed a new will and a

restatement of his trust, where he distributed his assets as follows: 40% to Phillip; 40% to Florence;

10% to Silvia; and 10% to James McGinn. Florence is named as successor trustee. Filip did not

leave any assets to Gabriella and she is not mentioned in the documents.

¶4 In November of 2012, Silvia filed a guardianship petition for Filip, in which she alleged

that he was no longer able to manage his personal and financial affairs. In 2013, the circuit court

granted the petition, and appointed MB Financial Bank, N.A. (MB) as the temporary limited

guardian of Filip’s estate and as successor trustee of the trust.

¶5 In 2014, Silvia objected to the first current accounts of Filip’s estate and trust prepared by

MB, which covered the period from MB’s appointment on July 3, 2013, through June 30, 2014.

MB amended the first current accounts, but Silvia continued to object. Silvia’s daughter, Gabriella

Smillie, filed her appearance pro se in 2014 and in 2015, she filed a “Joinder to objections to first

current accounts of estate and trust.”

¶6 Filip died on September 13, 2015. He was survived by Silvia, Phillip, and Florence. After

Filip’s death, MB’s role as successor trustee ended, and Florence was appointed successor trustee.

¶7 The court approved MB’s first current accounts of the trust and estate on March 2, 2016.

On July 26, 2016, MB filed an amended second and final accounts for the period of July 1, 2014,

2 No. 1-24-0976

through April 12, 2016. Silvia filed objections. A court order dated December 20, 2017, states that

Gabriella “further joins in the objection to the Second and final account of both the estate and

trust.” After permitting multiple extensions, the court required MB to supplement its amended

second and final accounts by March 8, 2023, and to file its third supplement to the final accounts

by March 29, 2023. On April 3, 2023, Silvia, who was no longer represented by counsel, filed a

pro se petition for rule to show cause, alleging that MB had failed to comply with the court’s orders

regarding the final accounting. Gabriella subsequently filed a pro se motion to join Silvia’s motion

for rule to show cause.

¶8 At a hearing on September 21, 2023, when Gabriella said she would “like to start on behalf

of the moving parties today,” counsel for Florence objected to her “saying anything,” arguing that

Gabriella “has no standing in this case.” He stated, “She is not a party to this case. She’s not a

beneficiary of the estate, so she has no standing.” Florence’s counsel noted that “this is the

objection of Silvia Vince. This is a motion filed by Silvia Vince who is pro se. There’s nobody

else who can argue it besides Ms. Vince. **** She’s the only movant before the court.” Silvia

agued in response that Gabriella “joined my motion” and “[n]obody objected. She joined by

objection in the first accounting, so she had standing there. She joined my objecting on the second

accounting, so she had standing there. And that it was never raised, so I object to that. It should

have been objected to at the level when she joined my motion.” Counsel for Florence reiterated

that Gabriella “has no standing at all in this matter. She’s not a stakeholder. She’s not an interested

person under the statute. And she is not a licensed attorney in this state. Filing an appearance alone

is not sufficient to give you standing.” The court agreed, telling Gabriella, “you do not have

standing to argue this motion.”

3 No. 1-24-0976

¶9 On October 20, 2023, Florence filed a motion to bar Gabriella from participating, stating

that “[t]he only matter remaining in this case [is] Silvia Vince’s objections to the accounting of the

estate guardian, [MB]. Gabriella Smillie, daughter of Silvia Vince and granddaughter of Filip

Rotheimer, has purported to join in those objections and has argued before the Court in this

matter.” Florence’s counsel argued that Gabriella is “not a beneficiary or a legatee of Filip

Rotheimer’s will or trust,” and that she had not filed a petition to intervene in the case. He argued

that she was not an “interested person” under the Probate Act. He noted that she was relying on

previous wills and trusts to argue that she had standing, but pointed out that “those aren’t the

operative instruments today. And we understand she filed an appearance, but simply filing an

appearance doesn’t give a party standing to participate in a case. Now we understand that maybe

*** Gabriella *** can observe these proceedings. But to participate in her own behalf as a party,

we object to that. And that’s why we brought this motion. She’s not an interested party.”

¶ 10 On February 26, 2024, the circuit court found that Gabriella lacked standing to participate

in the proceedings, and it denied her motion to reconsider on April 16, 2024. Gabriella timely

appealed.

¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 12 A. Jurisdiction

¶ 13 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(1), which

permits a party to appeal without a special finding when the party appeals “[a] judgment or order

entered in the administration of an estate, guardianship, or similar proceeding which finally

determines a right or status of a party.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(1) (eff. March 8, 2016). The circuit

court’s February 26, 2024, order barred Gabriella from further participating in the case based on

its finding that she lacked standing. Therefore, it constitutes a final determination of Gabriella’s

4 No. 1-24-0976

rights as required by the rule. See In re Estate of Mueller, 275 Ill. App. 3d 128, 139 (1995) (finding

that the judgment of the trial court was a final and appealable order sufficient to confer jurisdiction

on this court because it “finally determine[d] [the decedent’s brother’s] right to participate in the

estate proceedings”).

¶ 14 B. Standing

¶ 15 The sole issue before us is whether Gabriella has standing to participate in the

proceedings regarding her mother Silvia’s objections to MB’s final trust and estate accounts. “The

doctrine of standing ensures that issues are raised only by parties having a real interest in the

outcome of the controversy.” Powell v. Dean Foods Co., 2012 IL 111714, ¶ 35. “ ‘To have

standing, *** the [claimant] must not be merely curious or concerned but must possess some

personal claim, status, or right, a distinct and palpable injury which is fairly traceable to the

[respondent’s] conduct and substantially likely to be redressed by the grant of such relief.’ ” In re

Estate of Zivin, 2015 IL App (1st) 150606, ¶ 14 (quoting Potter v. Ables, 242 Ill. App. 3d 157, 158

(1993)). “A party must assert its own legal rights and interests, rather than assert a claim for relief

based upon the rights of third parties.” Powell v. Dean Foods Co., 2012 IL 111714, ¶ 36. “The

gravamen of standing is a real interest in the outcome of the controversy * * *.” Stevens v.

McGuireWoods LLP, 2015 IL 118652, ¶ 23. A court’s order finding a lack of standing presents a

question of law that we review de novo. In re Estate of Schumann, 2016 IL App (4th) 150844, ¶

17.

¶ 16 “Although standing is generally a ‘common law concept’ [citation], standing under the

Probate Act is entirely a creature of statute.” Id. ¶ 19. The Probate Act defines an “interested

person” as “one who has or represents a financial interest, property right or fiduciary status at the

time of reference which may be affected by the action, power or proceeding involved,

5 No. 1-24-0976

including without limitation an heir, legatee, creditor, person entitled to a spouse’s or child’s

award and the representative.” 755 ILCS 5/1-2.11 (West 2022).

¶ 17 Gabriella argues that she qualifies as an “interested person” and possesses a financial

interest in these accounting proceedings because she was named as a beneficiary under Filip’s

2006 will. However, that will was invalidated by Filip’s 2012 will, and the validity of the 2012

will is not at issue in these proceedings. Therefore, Gabriella’s former status as a beneficiary under

Filip’s superseded will does not vest her with a financial interest, property right or fiduciary status

that might be affected by the current proceedings, the subject of which is solely Silvia’s objections

to MB’s final accounts of Filip’s estate and trust. This distinguishes her case from those where

former beneficiaries were directly challenging the validity of a will or trust. See, e.g., In re Estate

of Schumann, 2016 IL App (4th) 150844, ¶¶ 32, 40 (finding that the children of decedent’s late

wife had standing to challenge the validity of decedent’s 2007 will that left them nothing, reasoning

that because the decedent’s earlier will benefited them, they had “the kind of ‘real interest in the

outcome’ of the controversy that is generally sufficient to establish standing”); Kelley v. First State

Bank of Princeton, 81 Ill App. 3d 402, 413 (1980) (finding that because plaintiffs were named as

beneficiaries under a prior will, they qualified as interested persons who were entitled to contest a

later will).

¶ 18 Next, Gabriella argues that she has standing in these proceedings because she was a

contingent beneficiary of the Filip Rotheimer Revocable Trust at one point in time. At the time of

his death, however, Filip’s children, including Gabriella’s mother Silvia, were still alive. If Filip

had died intestate, Gabriella would not have inherited any share of his estate under the Illinois

rules of descent and distribution, as she was not one of his heirs. See In re Estate of Schlenker,

209 Ill. 2d 456, 462 (2004) (the word “heir” refers to anyone who would take from a person’s

6 No. 1-24-0976

estate under the statute if that person died without leaving a will); 755 ILCS 5/2-1(b) (eff. Jan. 1,

2018) (“If there is no surviving spouse but a descendant of the decedent: the entire estate [shall be

distributed] to the decedent’s descendants per stirpes.”). Therefore, Gabriella’s prior status as a

contingent beneficiary does not qualify her as an interested person in these proceedings. See, e.g.,

In re Estate of Mueller, 275 Ill. App. 3d 128, 140 (1995) (the brother of the decedent was not an

heir at law because the decedent had surviving children).

¶ 19 Gabriella also argues that she has standing in these proceedings because Filip gifted her

fractional non-voting membership shares in several of his limited liability companies (LLCs) and

she received monetary distributions based on her respective interest in the LLCs when MB was

acting as trustee. Gabriella specifically identifies the 1.46% membership interest in one of the

LLCs and argues that because she is “a fractional shareholder to limited liability companies in

Filip’s trust”, “[t]his fact, under Illinois law, is sufficient to give her standing in the underlying

matter.” However, she cites no authority to support this contention. Moreover, because any interest

of Gabriella’s is in the LLC, not the Filip Rotheimer Revocable Trust itself, her claim is too

attenuated from the present dispute to give her standing. We do see how her fractional interest in

these LLCs will be affected by a judgment in this matter, as these proceedings do not challenge

the disbursements received by LLC members, charge MB with breaching its fiduciary duty to the

LLCs, or seek to alter Gabriella’s interest in the LLCs. See 755 ILCS 5/1-2.11 (an “interested

person” must “ha[ve] or represent[] a financial interest, property right or fiduciary status at the

time of reference which may be affected by the action, power or proceeding”). Therefore, because

Gabriella fails to show that she possesses an interest that will be affected by the trial court’s

7 No. 1-24-0976

decision in this proceeding, we find she lacks standing to challenge MB’s final accounts of Filip’s

trust and estate.

¶ 20 C. Doctrine of Laches

¶ 21 Gabriella nevertheless argues that Florence should have been prevented from challenging

her standing to participate in these proceedings under the doctrine of laches, because she filed her

pro se appearance in 2014, moved to join several of Silvia’s objections to MB’s accountings, and

appeared in court multiple times over the years without any objection from Florence. The circuit

court found the doctrine of laches inapplicable because Gabriella was not a party and because she

possessed “no real interest in these guardianship proceedings.”

¶ 22 “Laches is an equitable defense asserted against a party ‘who has knowingly slept upon his

rights and acquiesced for a great length of time, [citation] and its existence depends on whether,

under all circumstances of a particular case, a plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in

failing to institute proceedings before he did.’ ” Tillman v. Pritzker, 2021 IL 126387, ¶ 25 (quoting

Pyle v. Ferrell, 12 Ill. 2d 547, 552 (1958)). The two “fundamental elements” of laches are “(1)

‘lack of due diligence by the party asserting the claim’ and (2) ‘prejudice to the opposing party.’ ”

Id. (quoting Van Milligan v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners of the Village of Glenview,

158 Ill. 2d 85, 89 (1994)). We review a court’s ruling on the doctrine of laches for an abuse of

discretion. Negron v. City of Chicago, 376 Ill. App. 3d 242, 246 (2007).

¶ 23 Gabriella has not cited a single case finding that the equitable doctrine of laches may bar a

standing challenge. We agree with the circuit court that the doctrine of laches is inapplicable here

because Gabriella cannot satisfy either element. She was not named a party or served with a

summons or complaint, and she never moved to intervene. Nonparties do not become parties by

informally inserting themselves into a case. See, e.g., MidFirst Bank v. McNeal, 2016 IL App (1st)

8 No. 1-24-0976

150465, ¶ 14 (“Generally, a person who is not made a party need not and cannot appear in an

action unless the appearance is acquiesced in by the plaintiff, or unless the third person makes

himself or herself a party by some recognized form of proceeding.”) Moreover, Gabriella fails to

demonstrate that she suffered any prejudice here. Although she claims she made a “substantial

personal and financial investment” in these proceedings, she offers no support for this assertion.

Cf. Solomon v. North Shore Sanitary District, 48 Ill. 2d 309, 322 (1971) (finding plaintiff’s claim

was properly barred by laches where plaintiff delayed more than two years before bringing suit,

and the defendant was prejudiced by this delay because it had already sold $8 million in bonds and

expended part of these funds in furtherance of a construction project). Hence, the equitable defense

of laches does not apply here.

¶ 24 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 25 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

¶ 26 Affirmed.