In re Estate of Westphal

2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: June 22, 2021
• Docket: 2-19-0324
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U Nos. 2-19-0324 & 2-19-0775 cons. Order filed June 22, 2021

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

SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

In re ESTATE OF DORIS WESTPHAL, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court a disabled person ) of Du Page County. ) ) No. 16-P-361 ) (Scott Westphal and Nancy Nicholas, ) Honorable Petitioners-Appellees, v. Pamela Nestel, ) Robert G. Gibson, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE BRIDGES delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Jorgensen and Brennan concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s motion to compel answers to discovery and in limiting further discovery. Further, the trial court did not err in denying respondent’s petition to remove the guardian of the estate and overruling her objection to the second accounting, because neither of those rulings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Lastly, the trial court’s awards of attorney fees were not an abuse of discretion or manifestly erroneous. Therefore, we affirm.

¶2 This case arises from protracted litigation among siblings in the administration of the

guardianship of their mother. In this consolidated appeal, respondent, Pamela Nestel, argues that

the trial court erred in ruling on several of her motions and petitions. Namely, she argues that the

trial court erred in denying her motion to compel discovery, limiting further discovery, denying 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

her petition to remove the guardian of her mother’s estate, overruling her objection to the second

accounting for the estate, and awarding attorney fees. We affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 On April 15, 2016, petitioners, Scott Westphal and Nancy Nicholas, filed their verified

petition for adjudication of disability and for appointment of guardians. They respectively sought

to be appointed as guardians of the estate and of the person of their mother, Doris Westphal. Doris,

who was born in 1927, was living alone; her husband was deceased. Petitioners alleged that Doris

was a person with a disability due to mental deterioration and physical incapacity that caused her

to not be able to fully manage her person or estate. Along with Scott and Nancy, Doris’s other two

children were Bruce Westphal and respondent, Pamela. Scott was already named as Doris’s agent

under her power of attorney for property. On May 9, 2016, Pamela moved to strike, dismiss, or

deny petitioners’ verified petition.

¶5 On May 11, 2016, the trial court entered an order that, inter alia, appointed attorney

Kathleen Paravola as Doris’s guardian ad litem (GAL). The trial court directed her to interview

Doris, inform her of the petition for adjudication of disability, and file a written report with the

court.

¶6 Scott and Nancy filed a petition on June 16, 2016, to revoke powers of attorney and certain

family trust documents. Specifically, they sought to revoke powers of attorney obtained by Pamela

for Doris in July 2015 and March 2016.

¶7 The GAL filed a report on June 29, 2016. She reported that Doris was currently 88 years

old and residing with Nancy. In May 2016, Doris was formally diagnosed with Alzheimer’s

disease and progressive and moderate dementia. She was taking medication for her Alzheimer’s

-2- 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

disease. Her memory had been significantly deteriorating over the past year or so, and she was in

need of assistance to manage her affairs. She was no longer driving.

¶8 The report continued that Scott believed that Pamela and Bruce were taking Doris to the

ATM and bank to withdraw large sums of cash or write checks out to “cash,” and then using the

money for themselves. Credit card statements reflected large bills from expensive restaurants to

which they took Doris. Scott also stated that his nephews used her credit card number to charge

substantial purchases. He worried that his siblings were taking advantage of their mother.

¶9 Pamela claimed that the checks made out to “cash” were actually made by Scott and Nancy.

Pamela was suspicious of Scott’s handling of their mother’s money, and she also believed that he

was not investing her money well. Pamela and Bruce were both concerned that Scott had used

their mother’s money to pay $30,000 for his son’s tuition. Scott stated that when Doris had learned

that his son would be attending Carnegie Mellon, she was very proud and repeatedly said that she

wanted to pay for it, and he had finally agreed that she could pay for one semester’s tuition.

¶ 10 The GAL provided that, among Doris’s children, “things came to a head around Christmas

time last year.” Ultimately, Pamela and Bruce were at odds with Scott and Nancy, especially over

Scott’s power of attorney. There were various accusations among the siblings without any

resolution reached. The family attorney, Donna Cain, had attempted to mediate the matter.

¶ 11 The GAL described Doris as a “lovely elderly lady” with bright eyes and an engaging

laugh. She was in good physical health for her age. Aside from her memory issues, she appeared

to be intelligent and generally oriented, especially with regard to her family. Doris recognized that

she was at a point where she needed help managing her affairs. When discussing how she felt

about living with someone and having someone help with day-to-day living, she said that Nancy

-3- 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

took good care of her and that she would be fine living with Nancy. She indicated she would also

be fine living with Bruce or Scott.

¶ 12 At all times, Doris was clear that Scott was her choice to handle her money and finances.

He had been investing for her for a long time and she wished he would continue to do so. She

explained that Scott’s background was in finance and he had done quite well for himself. She did

not specifically remember paying for Scott’s son’s education. However, she did seem to know that

he was going to school, and when asked if giving money for her grandson’s education might be

something she would do, she said yes, explaining that her children’s and grandchildren’s

educations were always important to her and her husband.

¶ 13 Doris did not remember granting Pamela power of attorney. She vaguely remembered her

coming to her home with men she did not know, and she did not understand what she had signed.

When the GAL explained that she had given Pamela power to make decisions about her money,

she stated that was not what she wanted. When asked about a $7000 check taken from one of her

accounts to pay for Pamela’s attorney, she replied “why would I want to take money out of my

account to pay her attorney to fight me?”

¶ 14 The GAL’s conclusions and recommendations were as follows. There was a long history

of resentment among the siblings over many issues, resulting in distrust. The primary dispute was

not whether Doris needed assistance but instead over how much assistance she needed and who

should be trusted to manage her money. Doris expressed agreement with Scott and Nancy that they

should be appointed her legal guardians. Bruce and Pamela were contesting their appointment. The

GAL believed that most cash gifts that Doris provided to her children were likely agreed to by her,

although she had trouble with specific recollections. As to the tuition gift for Scott’s son, that was

in keeping with Doris’s long-standing desire to assist her grandchildren with their education. The

-4- 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

allegations that Scott was not an appropriate trustee or guardian did not appear to have any basis

in fact. Moreover, Pamela’s actions in obtaining power of attorney for Doris and having her

terminate her association with the longtime family attorney were “very troubling.” It seemed very

unlikely to the GAL that Doris would knowingly terminate Ms. Cain’s services.

¶ 15 Next, the GAL disagreed with Pamela’s assertions that her parents desired an equitable

division of trust property among the children, because the family trust documents specifically

provided for an equal division among the four children. Finally, the GAL believed that Nancy was

the best choice as Doris’s primary caregiver. She opined that it was in Doris’s best interest that the

trial court grant petitioners’ request to appoint Nancy and Scott as guardians of Doris’s person and

estate, respectively.

¶ 16 The parties entered into a family settlement agreement (FSA) on or around October 5,

2016. On October 19, 2016, the trial court entered an agreed order finding that Doris was a disabled

person and appointing Nancy and Scott as plenary guardians of Doris’s person and estate,

respectively. The agreed order also memorialized the entering of the FSA, and the trial court

retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the FSA. As guardian of Doris’s person, Nancy was

to provide for reasonable visitation between Doris and other family members. As guardian of the

estate, Scott was authorized to make expenditures pursuant to the budget provided in the FSA. The

agreed order further provided that the budget for Doris’s estate was to be approved annually on or

around November 1.

¶ 17 On December 12, 2016, Scott filed an asset inventory for Doris, and Pamela objected to

the accounting and inventory. On October 23, 2017, Scott and Nancy moved to approve the annual

report of the guardian of the person, annual accounting of the guardian of the estate, and budget

-5- 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

for the estate for 2017-2018. Pamela objected separately to all three, and the trial court set an

evidentiary hearing for March 14, 2018.

¶ 18 The evidentiary hearing did not take place on March 14, and instead the trial court entered

an order that day requiring that Scott and Nancy produce information and documents, such as

billing statements and updates on Doris’s medical issues. Scott filed a report of the guardian of the

estate on May 16, 2018.

¶ 19 On May 24, 2018, Pamela filed a petition for enforcement, for rule to show cause, for

indirect civil contempt, and for removal of Scott as guardian of Doris’s estate and as trustee of her

living trust. In primary part, she argued that Scott had failed to comply with the trial court’s March

14, 2018, order, in that he had failed to disclose all statements evidencing estate expenses.

¶ 20 On June 14, 2018, the trial court ordered that, inter alia, the parties were to complete

discovery within 45 days or as otherwise agreed. It scheduled an evidentiary hearing for September

5, 2018, on the parties’ open motions. In mid-July 2018, Pamela issued subpoenas to eight banks

and financial institutions seeking documents related to Doris’s accounts.

¶ 21 Also in July 2018, Pamela moved pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)) to strike Scott and Nancy’s affirmative defenses to her

May 24, 2018, petition. Scott and Nancy filed amended affirmative defenses to Pamela’s petition,

asserting that they had complied with the trial court’s March 14, 2018, order, and that Pamela’s

relief should be denied under the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.

¶ 22 On August 13, 2018, the trial court entered an order that recommended that the parties

engage a forensic accountant or other similar third-party service, as can be agreed, for the purpose

of reviewing the accounting and making a report, with the cost born by the estate. It also struck

-6- 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

the scheduled evidentiary hearing and noted that counsel had informed it that discovery was

progressing.

¶ 23 On September 21, 2018, Pamela filed two motions: one to appoint a forensic accountant

and another to compel production of unredacted documents.

¶ 24 The trial court granted Pamela’s request that Scott provide unredacted documents, and it

continued her motion for a forensic accountant, pending the GAL’s oral report on estate accounting

and budgeting. Meanwhile, Pamela provided notice to produce to Scott and Nancy pursuant to

Rule 214 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 214 (eff. July 1, 2018)). On February 1, 2019, she also moved to compel

answers to discovery and filed notices for Scott’s and Nancy’s individual discovery depositions.

¶ 25 A. GAL’s Supplemental Report

¶ 26 The GAL provided the parties a supplemental report on February 14, 2019, which was later

filed with the court. Therein, she recounted the back-and-forth litigation between the parties. The

GAL observed that “[w]ithin a few months of the guardianship being entered, litigation over

Doris’s estate began and has snowballed into the above mire of pleadings and counter-pleadings,”

resulting in the trial court’s request that she review estate financial records for any significant

accounting abnormalities. The GAL continued that the issues raised by Pamela could be distilled

into disputes over “accounting and expenditures of Doris’s money, compliance with the FSA,

visitation, and *** attorney’s fees.” On the other hand, Scott and Nancy asserted that they had

complied with their obligations under the FSA, that Doris’s estate had been properly administered,

that the accountings were proper and complete, and that they had complied with visitation

requirements. They claimed that they had been subjected to “a continuous campaign of

harassment.”

-7- 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

¶ 27 Summarizing the pre-annual report litigation, the GAL stated that Pamela had objected to

the initial inventory based on the absence of certain personal property and Doris’s car, and further

objected that the inventory did not account for Doris’s Fidelity IRA or Thrivent life insurance

policy. Contrary to Pamela’s objections, the GAL observed that the identified car was purchased

and paid for by Scott prior to the FSA and guardianship; the initial inventory contained a detailed

list of specific household items and personal property; and the last page of the inventory listed the

Fidelity IRA account and Thrivent life insurance policy, in addition to a Bank of America checking

account and the Wells Fargo/Schwab Living Trust Account.

¶ 28 With respect to Pamela’s request for an on-going accounting of Doris’s estate and assets,

the GAL concluded that the FSA did not require that all expenses had to be detailed or have

supporting documents provided, nor did it preclude Scott and Nancy from obtaining

reimbursement from the estate for out-of-pocket expenses. Accordingly, nothing improper was

shown simply because money from the estate was transferred to Scott’s or Nancy’s personal

accounts. As to Pamela’s requests for bank and credit card statements, the GAL was not privy to

all documents provided on a quarterly basis, but the bank and trust brokerage statements she had

received appeared to be complete hard copies, and the redactions were prudent and appropriate to

protect account numbers and the consultant’s contact information.

¶ 29 Moving to the guardians’ annual accounting and budget, the GAL had reviewed various

unredacted records, including credit card statements, bank statements, trust brokerage account

statements, IRA statements, life insurance policy statements, real estate sale documents, and

receipts for expenses ranging from groceries to furniture. She compared the withdrawals from the

trust brokerage account and bank accounts with payments for expenses, invoices, and receipts, and

she cross-referenced expenses and statements on both a monthly and a total basis. The period for

-8- 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

her review was October 2016 to November 2018. She also met with Pamela and her counsel to try

to discern their specific alleged discrepancies or concerns.

¶ 30 Following her review, she believed she could reconcile all of Pamela’s alleged

discrepancies and concerns, such as verifying the amounts expended on Doris’s home and

explaining certain withdrawals from the trust brokerage account.

¶ 31 Next, the GAL addressed Pamela’s allegations that Scott and Nancy violated their FSA

disclosure obligations. The GAL reported that they had timely provided Pamela with relevant trust

brokerage account statements, and whether any additional statements were required could be

determined without further discovery.

¶ 32 In conclusion, the GAL did not find assets unaccounted for, nor did she see evidence that

Scott was hiding assets from Doris’s estate or trust. The GAL further noted that Pamela was not a

co-guardian and was not entitled to an on-going accounting simply because she did not trust Scott.

She conceded that a “small portion” of the pleadings raised valid concerns about whether FSA

disclosure requirements were met pertaining to entertainment expenses and home sale

expenditures and whether visitation had been properly permitted. She continued, however, that it

was extremely difficult “to separate the wheat from the chaff,” in that Pamela had raised numerous

concerns and that even agreements to provide her more information than she was entitled to under

the FSA did not satisfy her concerns.

¶ 33 The GAL opined that further discovery would not benefit Doris and that the trial court had

enough information to determine whether reimbursements or fees were appropriate. She found it

“distressing” that the family had spent over two years in litigation. She noted that Doris was in a

“wonderful facility” and by all accounts doing well given her circumstances, but the tension and

distrust among her children had contributed to “needless motions and petitions.”

-9- 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

¶ 34 B. Hearing on Pamela’s Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery

¶ 35 The court held a hearing on February 19, 2019, in which the GAL expounded her report.

The GAL began that, although both sides have “lots of arguments *** based on her report,” the

report “says what it says.” She was concerned that there had been a lot of litigation thus far and

that it was not benefitting Doris. Doris was doing “okay” at 91 years old.

¶ 36 In response to Pamela’s counsel’s argument over disclosures and accounting, the GAL

stated that she had reviewed the relevant financial statements and added up withdrawals for the

relevant time periods. She believed that Pamela’s counsel had the same financial statements that

she had. Pamela’s counsel disputed that he had all the documents the GAL had. He also argued

that the GAL wrote her report based on her notes and not upon reviewing specific documents. The

GAL responded that that was incorrect.

¶ 37 The GAL continued that the documents that she was referencing were documents provided

to all counsel in 2017, which included statements from Doris’s checking accounts, IRA, and life

insurance policy. She also took exception to counsel’s statement that “[t]he reason they don’t want

to produce [more documents] is because they don’t want us to look at the documents and find

discrepancies. Only reason.” She asserted that the accounting stated how much was spent “and that

was how much was spent.” Whether every expenditure was reasonable was something that the trial

court could question, but she had no doubt that the expenses indicated in the accounting were the

expenses actually spent.

¶ 38 The trial court interjected that out of all the guardianship cases it had presided over, “this

would be in the top few of level of dysfunction between siblings.” The trial court was concerned

with the well-being and best interest of Doris, and yet the litigation “just continues on.” It

- 10 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

referenced the last court hearing where Pamela had to be removed from the courtroom, and even

when she was told to leave, she refused, trying to stand in the back.

¶ 39 The trial court denied Pamela’s motion to compel answers to discovery. It noted that the

GAL “doesn’t have an axe to grind about years or decades of problems between family members.”

She was the eyes and ears of the court, and she had said that enough was enough. In its written

order, the trial court also stayed discovery until further order of the court. Pamela moved to

reconsider the trial court’s ruling.

¶ 40 C. Hearing on Motion to Reconsider, Removal Petition, and More

¶ 41 The trial court heard Pamela’s motion to reconsider on March 22, 2019, where Pamela

argued that the scope of discovery was supposed to be broad and that the trial court should have

allowed her motion to compel Scott to turn over additional documents.

¶ 42 The GAL was present at the hearing with a large box of documents that she had received

in connection with the first accounting, which she had brought “just in case.” She informed the

court that both sides had issued interrogatories and requests to admit, and both sides had responded

to those. She believed most all documents and information, if not all, had been provided. She had

spent substantial time in her supplemental report sorting out the discovery because it was a “jumble

of different timelines.” She stressed that while Pamela was asking for documents for every ongoing

expense over the past several years, the only objections filed were to the first accounting. She also

believed that Pamela had been provided all documents that showed Doris’s income and all

expenses listed on them. She did not understand what more Pamela was seeking beyond the actual

credit card statements instead of a transaction list printed from the online transactions. Further, she

agreed with Scott and Nancy’s counsel that the FSA did not require that Scott provide his credit

- 11 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

card statements but required only that he provide trust credit card statements, of which there were

none.

¶ 43 The trial court interjected, asking Pamela’s counsel whether any of the case law he had

cited in the motion for reconsideration applied general discovery principles to the circumstances

of the present litigation, which was a closed case with a guardianship order already appointing

guardians of the estate. Counsel responded that he had not cited any such cases.

¶ 44 The GAL resumed that Scott was entitled to pay Doris’s expenses and reimburse himself,

so long as he was not spending her money inappropriately. As indicated in her report, the bulk of

the credit card statements reflected Scott’s payment of legal fees. She had been asked to look at

the documents to review whether there were inappropriate large sums of money taken from Doris’s

account, and she did not identify any. She had tried to answer Pamela’s questions “over and over

again” and “[didn’t] know what else to do. They just [didn’t] like the answers that have been

given.”

¶ 45 She continued that both sides had engaged in discovery and that it needed to end. She did

not see how any of this continued litigation benefitted Doris. As a final remark, she noted that

while she did not feel as if she had been bullied by anyone in this litigation, both sides had

expressed their displeasure with her at various points walking out of court.

¶ 46 The trial court began its decision on Pamela’s motion to reconsider denial of her motion to

compel discovery by again remarking on the antipathy between the family members. It described

Pamela as a “hostile and vexatious litigant.” The trial court had appointed the GAL out of an

abundance of caution, but Pamela was still unhappy with the discovery conducted and the GAL’s

report, and she wanted a forensic accountant and discovery depositions. Despite her requests, the

trial court noted that no statutory provision nor any case provided that, after a guardian is

- 12 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

appointed, a litigant can year after year cause the estate the expense of having to defend every

action. The trial court had discretion to limit discovery, and it was exercising that discretion.

¶ 47 Having disposed of Pamela’s motion to reconsider, the trial court turned to Pamela’s

remaining objections and pending motions. It overruled Pamela’s objections to the accounting,

approved the pending accounting, and denied her petition to remove the guardians. It explained

that it was untenable to allow “a disgruntled and unsuccessful party *** to raise objections to

everything that’s been filed in terms of accountings and annual reports and that the estate has to

defend it.” The trial court had appointed the GAL, and she reported that the accountings were in

order and did not raise suspicions. The trial court continued that, while Pamela remained unhappy

and wanted to continue to litigate, there had been no substantial change in circumstances to justify

removal of the guardians, there had been no breach of the guardians’ duties, and the objections to

the accountings were groundless. That same day, the trial court entered a written order

memorializing its rulings at the hearing and continuing Pamela’s objection to the 2017-18 budget.

¶ 48 Pamela timely appealed the March 22, 2019, order.

¶ 49 D. Second Annual Accounting and Attorney Fees

¶ 50 In March 2019, Scott filed the estate’s second accounting for October 2017 through

September 2018, and about one month later, Scott and Nancy petitioned for attorney fees. Pamela

objected to the second accounting on April 23, 2019, arguing that it failed to disclose estate assets,

including Doris’s Thrivent life insurance, that expenses did not match disbursements, and more.

¶ 51 That same day, Pamela also petitioned for reimbursement of attorney fees. She argued that

the FSA provided for reimbursement of attorney fees incurred by a prevailing party who

substantially received relief sought. She claimed that she had incurred fees in the amount of almost

$47,000 in her efforts to enforce the terms of the FSA against Scott and Nancy.

- 13 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

¶ 52 The trial court heard Pamela’s objection to the second accounting and the petitions for

attorney fees on August 8, 2019. First, it overruled her objections to the budget and second

accounting, explaining in part that “these things are not benefitting the estate in any fashion.” It

specifically found her objection to Nancy’s fees for Doris’s care to be speculative, explaining that

even after Doris’s placement in a care facility, Nancy had provided her some services. Turning to

Pamela’s petition for fees, the trial court conceded that she had raised some “minor issues” with

potential benefit to the estate. For instance, it was right for her to point out the need to evaluate the

amount of Nancy’s continued fees to care for Doris after Doris was moved to a care facility, and

to inquire as to the inclusion of Doris’s life insurance in the annual accounting. However, the

benefit to the estate was in very small proportion to the amount of fees sought, and the appropriate

fees were hard to quantify. As best as the trial court could quantify, it concluded that $5000 of

Pamela’s requested fees were for actions beneficial to the estate. The balance of fees requested

were for “continuing efforts to soil the name of *** the guardians and due to animosity between

siblings,” and did not benefit the estate. Thus, Pamela’s petition for attorney fees was granted in

part and denied in part.

¶ 53 As to Scott and Nancy’s petition for fees, the trial court found that they were incurred

mostly in response to various petitions as well as for normal duties. Their fees were reasonable

and for Doris’s benefit, and they were approved.

¶ 54 The trial court entered a written order the same day memorializing its oral rulings and

approving the second accounting. It granted $22,168.47 in attorney fees and costs to Scott and

Nancy’s counsel from the estate.

¶ 55 Pamela timely appealed the trial court’s August 8, 2019, order, and we consolidated the

appeal with her appeal of the March 22, 2019, order.

- 14 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

¶ 56 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 57 Pamela identifies five arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in

terminating discovery; (2) the trial court’s denial of her petition to remove Scott as guardian was

against the manifest weight of the evidence; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in denying her

motion to compel answers to discovery; (4) the trial court’s overruling of her objections to the

second annual accounting was against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (5) the trial court’s

grant of attorney fees was manifestly erroneous. We address her arguments in turn.

¶ 58 First, however, we must confirm our appellate jurisdiction. In re Marriage of Salvatore,

2019 IL App (2d) 180425, ¶ 15 (reviewing courts have an independent duty to examine their

appellate jurisdiction). Pamela asserts that we have appellate jurisdiction over the March 22, 2019,

order pursuant to Rule 303 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 303 (eff. July 1, 2017)), but that order was not a final

judgment. See Eclipse Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. Compliance Co., 381 Ill. App. 3d 127, 132

(2007) (a final judgment fixes absolutely and finally the rights of the parties; it determines the

litigation on the merits so that, if affirmed, only the execution of the judgment remains). Instead,

if we have jurisdiction, it derives from Rule 304(b)(1) (Ill. S. Ct. R.304 (b)(1) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016)).

Rule 304(b)(1) provides for appeals from “[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.”

In establishing appellate jurisdiction, “only those orders which ‘finally’ determine a right or status

of a party are subject to Rule 304(b)(1).” In re Estate of Devey, 239 Ill. App. 3d 630, 633 (1993).

¶ 59 Consistent with our case law, the denial of a petition to remove a guardian is immediately

appealable under Rule 304(b)(1). See In re Neuf’s Estate, 85 Ill. App. 3d 468, 469 (1980)

(determining that “an order granting or denying removal of a conservator should be regarded as a

final determination of a right or status within the meaning of Rule 304(b)(1)”); see also In re Estate

- 15 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

of Ohlman, 259 Ill. App. 3d 120, 124 (1994) (order appointing a guardian was not a final judgment

but was appealable under Rule 304(b)(1)). The case law is consistent with the committee

comments to Rule 304, which support that a ruling on motions to appoint or remove a guardian

are final in character under Rule 304(b)(1). See Ill. S. Ct. R. 304, Committee Comments (rev. Sept.

1988) (“Subparagraph (1) applies to orders that are final in character although entered in

comprehensive proceedings that include other matters. Examples are an order admitting or refusing

to admit a will to probate, appointing or removing an executor, or allowing or disallowing a

claim.”). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to review the denial of Pamela’s petition to remove

Scott as guardian.

¶ 60 As a general principle, the scope of review in an interlocutory appeal is normally limited

to an examination of whether the trial court erred in granting or denying the interlocutory relief.

U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. In Retail Fund Algonquin Commons, LLC, 2013 IL App (2d) 130213,

¶ 22. However, courts have recognized that review of an interlocutory order may well require

review of “attendant” prior orders, that is, orders intertwined with the merits of an interlocutory

order. Id. Here, the trial court’s denial of further discovery was attendant to its denial of Pamela’s

petition to remove Scott as guardian. Her argument to remove Scott depended upon alleged

accounting irregularities, and she had argued that additional discovery would help expose the

alleged accounting irregularities.

¶ 61 On the issue of attorney fees, Pamela correctly asserts that we have jurisdiction under Rule

304(b)(1) because the trial court finally resolved her attorney fee petition in its August 8, 2019,

order. See In re Trusts of Strange ex re. Whitney, 324 Ill. App. 3d 37, 42 (2001) (final resolution

of a petition for attorney fees was immediately appealable under Rule 304(b)(1)). Although the

trial court’s overruling of her objection to the second accounting was not a final order, the objection

- 16 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

was part of her efforts to enforce the FSA at the time of her petition for attorney fees and was

therefore attendant to the fee petition. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to review all appealed

orders.

¶ 62 A. Discovery

¶ 63 Pamela’s first and third issues on appeal both involve discovery. That is, she argues

separately that the trial court erred in denying her motion to compel answers to discovery and also

in denying other further discovery. As these two issues substantially overlap, we address Pamela’s

arguments involving discovery together.

¶ 64 As to the denial of her motion to compel answers to discovery, she argues that the

information she requested would have been admissible at trial or would have led to admissible

evidence. She identifies the discovery sought as documents produced to the GAL, credit card

records and bank statements pertaining to expenditures for Doris, documents evidencing

renovation payments for Doris’s residence prior to its sale, documents evidencing gifts from Doris

to Scott or Nancy, and documents evidencing their legal fees charged to the estate. She continues

that the trial court never ruled on whether the requested discovery was relevant.

¶ 65 As to the trial court’s decision to limit further discovery, she argues that the trial court

abused its discretion because, before terminating further discovery, it made no inquiry into whether

the discovery she sought was relevant, subject to privilege, or burdensome to produce. She

continues that both her objection to the accounting and her petition to remove the guardian were

fact-based inquiries requiring discovery.

¶ 66 Pamela also disputes the trial court’s reasoning that the discovery phase ended with the

appointment of guardians, arguing that there is no distinction between a “pre-appointment and

post-appointment guardianship case” for purposes of discovery. She takes exception to the GAL’s

- 17 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

review and report, arguing that the GAL did not have an accounting background and did not

perform an in-depth review of relevant financial documents.

¶ 67 Scott and Nancy respond that Pamela has not made a showing that the trial court’s denial

of her motion to compel discovery was arbitrary or unreasonable. They cite to the GAL’s testimony

that the motion should not be granted, and they argue that further discovery would not have

benefited Doris.

¶ 68 We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pamela’s motion to

compel answers to discovery or in staying further discovery. Trial courts are afforded wide latitude

in determining the scope of discovery, and their rulings on discovery matters are generally

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Pederson v. Mi-Jack Products, Inc., 389 Ill. App. 3d 33, 41

(2009). While the scope of permissible discovery is broad, it is not unlimited, and a trial court must

exercise its discretion to balance the need for truth against the excessive burdens of discovery. Y-

Not Project, Ltd. v. Fox Waterway Agency, 2016 Il App (2d) 150502, ¶ 43. An abuse of discretion

occurs when no reasonable person would adopt the trial court’s view. Tirio v. Dalton, 2019 IL App

(2d) 181019, ¶ 65.

¶ 69 We first reject Pamela’s characterization of the GAL as being unqualified and failing to

conduct a thorough review. The record demonstrates that the GAL was a licensed attorney who

prepared thorough reports based upon review of various relevant documentation, including credit

card and bank statements, IRA account statements, and receipts for all manner of expenses. Given

the trial court’s consistent observation of antipathy between the sibling parties—even describing

Pamela as a “hostile and vexatious litigant”—it was reasonable to rely on the conclusions and

recommendations of the GAL, who was a neutral party appointed to look out for Doris’s best

interest.

- 18 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

¶ 70 Pamela also disputes the trial court’s reasoning that discovery is not necessarily available

in a “post-appointment” case. While we agree that there is no firm rule regarding the availability

of discovery in post-appointment guardianship administration, we recognize that application of the

discovery rules is meant to be “flexible and adaptable to the infinite variety of cases and

circumstances appearing in the trial court.” Atwood v. Warner Electric Brake and Clutch Co., Inc.,

239 Ill. App. 3d 81, 88 (1992). In a guardianship administration such as this, where the guardians

were already appointed and significant discovery had already occurred, the trial court had to

balance continuing discovery against the best interest of the ward. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(c)(3) (eff.

July 1, 2014) (explaining that a trial court, in limiting or denying discovery, may weigh the burden

or expense of discovery against its benefit and may also consider the importance of the issues and

the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues).

¶ 71 Here, the trial court did just that in limiting further discovery. It determined that continued

discovery would not benefit Doris, and it believed that the prior discovery along with the GAL’s

report were sufficient to resolve the issues at hand. This determination was reasonable given that

the GAL, on the trial court’s request, had provided a thorough review of the accounting, found the

accounting to be in good order, and opined that further discovery would not benefit Doris. The

GAL’s opinion that further discovery would not benefit Doris was bolstered by the fact that

continued litigation fees, including attorney fees, were being drawn from Doris’s estate.

¶ 72 The GAL also testified that Pamela’s counsel had been provided with sufficient

documentation to show all of Doris’s income and expenses, indicating that continued discovery

requests were likely duplicative. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(a) (eff. July 1, 2014) (“Duplication of

discovery methods to obtain the same information and discovery requests that are disproportionate

in terms of burden or expense should be avoided.”). For instance, she did not understand why

- 19 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

Pamela’s counsel wanted credit card statements when the pertinent information had already been

provided via online printouts.

¶ 73 In fact, Pamela’s brief recites her request for “documents that had already previously been

produced to the GAL for review,” indicating that those documents had been reviewed for

irregularities by the GAL in making her recommendations to the court. Likewise, Pamela’s request

for copies of checks would be largely duplicative with checking statements, which the GAL

testified were provided to all counsel. As to gifts from Doris to Scott and Nancy, the GAL had

reviewed all kinds of receipts and expenses, all the way down to receipts for groceries.

¶ 74 Thus, while Pamela’s argument focuses on the relevance of her requested discovery, she

overlooks the trial court’s consideration of its relative burden. Given the trial court’s reasonable

determination that further discovery would not benefit Doris, as well as the duplicative nature of

discovery sought, it did not abuse its discretion in denying Pamela’s motion to compel discovery

and limiting further discovery. As a final note, the trial court did not terminate all future discovery

in this case, but it instead stayed discovery until further court order, leaving the door open to

discovery on new issues as they may arise.

¶ 75 B. Petition to Remove the Guardian of the Estate

¶ 76 Pamela next argues that the trial court’s denial of her petition to remove Scott as guardian

of the estate was against the manifest weight of the evidence. She argues that, under section 23-3

of the Probate Act of 1975 (Act) (755 ILCS 5/23-3 (West 2018)), the trial court erred in refusing

to hold an evidentiary hearing on her petition for removal.

¶ 77 She further argues that under section 11a-10 of the Act, the GAL was only to advise the

trial court on Doris’s best interest and was not to become an “opinion witness at the accounting

stage.” She contends that the Act did not permit the trial court to abdicate its fact-finding role and

- 20 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

adopt the opinion of the GAL, that the GAL was not qualified to be an opinion witness, and that

she performed an insufficient cursory review. She concludes that the trial court’s denial was not

supported by the evidence because it was supported only by the opinion of the GAL.

¶ 78 Scott and Nancy respond that Pamela failed to comply with statutory procedural

requirements for a removal hearing, in that no rule to show cause or citation for removal ever

issued or were served upon Scott. They further argue that there was substantial compliance with

the spirit of the statute so that an evidentiary hearing was not required.

¶ 79 We hold that the trial court did not err in denying Pamela’s petition to remove Scott as

guardian. Pursuant to section 23-2 of the Act (755 ILCS 5/23-2 (West 2018)), an interested party

may petition to remove a representative for a variety of reasons, including that the representative

wasted or mismanaged the estate. There is no dispute that Pamela was an interested party, and

Scott was a representative because he was guardian of Doris’s estate (755 ILCS 5/1-2.15 (West

2018)).

¶ 80 Section 23-3 of the Act (755 ILCS 5/23-3 (West 2018)) provides for the procedure for

removal of a representative. It requires that the trial court issue a citation to the representative to

show cause why they should not be removed, and the representative is given an opportunity to file

a pleading to the petition. Id. § 23-3(a), (c). “If on the hearing the court finds that [the

representative] should be removed for any cause listed in Section 23-2, the court may remove him

and revoke his letters.” Id. § 23-3(c). Generally, if the representative denies the allegations in the

citation, the court commences proceedings on the removal petition by conducting an evidentiary

hearing. In re Estate of Kirk, 242 Ill. App. 3d 68, 73 (1993). At the hearing, the petitioner bears

the burden of making a prima facie case for removal, and if they sustain their burden, the burden

shifts to the representative to prove their fitness to retain office. Id. We will not reverse a decision

- 21 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

on a petition to remove a guardian unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re

S.F., 2020 IL App (2d) 190248, ¶ 37.

¶ 81 As to Scott and Nancy’s response that proper procedure was not followed because no

citation or notice issued pursuant to section 23-3, Illinois courts recognize that evidence of

substantial compliance with section 23-3 is sufficient under the Act. In re Estate of Tait, 2017 IL

App (3d) 150834, ¶ 19. Substantial compliance means that a party received a fair hearing and was

not prejudiced by formal deficiencies in procedure. Id. ¶ 20. Here, even without a formal citation,

Scott and Nancy were aware of Pamela’s petition to remove Scott and her grounds for removal via

her May 24, 2018, petition. Accordingly, the lack of a section 23-3 citation does not defeat

Pamela’s petition. See In re Estate of Talty, 376 Ill. App. 3d 1082, 1091-92 (2007) (excusing strict

compliance with section 23-3 of the Act where the filing of the removal petition provided the

executor notice).

¶ 82 On the other hand, we agree with Scott and Nancy that Pamela received a fair hearing on

her removal petition, demonstrating substantial compliance with the Act. 1 The trial court heard

1 It is unclear whether strict compliance with section 23-3 of the Act would necessarily

require a full-fledged evidentiary hearing. Section 23-3 never specifically references or requires

an evidentiary hearing. The limited case law on the matter suggests that the petitioner need only

an opportunity to present “reasonable grounds” for removal. See In re Lucas’ Estate, 71 Ill. 2d

277, 281-82 (1978) (agreeing with the appellate court’s term “reasonable grounds” to support

removal); see also In re Estate of Talty, 376 Ill. App. 3d at 1092 (holding that any procedural error

was harmless when the executor had notice of removal and was given an opportunity to be heard

on the issue).

- 22 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

arguments from both parties and heard the GAL respond. The hearing took place March 22, 2019,

approximately 10 months after Pamela petitioned for Scott’s removal. The parties had been

engaged in discovery before and after the removal petition was filed, and the GAL provided her

supplemental report to all parties over a month before the hearing. To the extent Pamela argues

that she did not have access to additional discovery, we have already determined that the trial

court’s denial of that discovery was not an abuse of discretion. After hearing the parties’

arguments, the trial court concluded that the guardians had not breached their duties and that the

objections to the accounting were groundless. It therefore denied Pamela’s petition to remove Scott

as guardian. Under these circumstances, the hearing substantially complied with section 23-3 of

the Act.

¶ 83 Turning to Pamela’s argument that the GAL’s review was insufficient and that her role did

not comply with section 11a-10 of the Act, we find her argument unpersuasive. First, section 11a-

10 is not on point because it does not provide the procedure for a hearing to remove a representative

but instead provides for the procedure preliminary to a hearing on the adjudication of disability

and initial appointments of a guardian. Compare 755 ILCS 5/11a-10 (West 2018) (procedure

preliminary to a hearing on a petition filed pursuant to section 11a-8), with 7555 ILCS 5/23-3

(West 2018) (procedure for removal of a representative).

¶ 84 More importantly, the trial court had every right to rely on the GAL’s report and

recommendation, which it had asked her to make. See In re Mark W., 228 Ill. 2d 365, 374 (2008)

(“A guardian ad litem functions as the ‘eyes and ears of the court’ and not as the ward’s attorney.”).

The GAL’s review was anything but insufficient: as we have previously discussed (see supra ¶

69), she reviewed all manner of financial disclosures and made thorough reports based on her

review. The GAL did not find evidence that Scott was hiding assets or that assets were unaccounted

- 23 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

for, and she found that he substantially complied with the FSA. She had met with Pamela and her

counsel to try to discern all their specific concerns, and she believed that she could reconcile all

their alleged accounting discrepancies.

¶ 85 Thus, the record rebuffs Pamela’s characterization of the GAL in this case as an “opinion

witness at the accounting stage.” Rather, the characterization is consistent with the GAL’s

observation that “[t]hey just don’t like the answers that have been given.” The GAL here simply

did her job: she reviewed the financial disclosures, reconciled alleged discrepancies, and reported

to the court. The GAL’s conclusions supported the trial court’s determination that Scott had not

breached his duties as guardian of the estate, and therefore the denial of Pamela’s petition to

remove him as guardian was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 86 C. Objection to the Second Annual Accounting

¶ 87 Pamela also argues that the trial court erred in overruling her objection to the second

accounting. She argues that she raised several objections as follows: (1) the accounting’s failure

to disclose the ward’s life insurance policy; (2) a discrepancy in income compared to the ward’s

tax returns; (3) a discrepancy between the expenses reported in the accounting and other

disbursements; (4) discrepancies in the stated value of the ward’s investment accounts; (5)

expenses indicated as payments to a caregiver, which were paid to the guardian’s personal account;

(6) payments to a guardian’s personal credit card that were not supported by an actual credit card

statement; and (7) payments to the guardian of the person for care of the ward after the ward was

no longer living with her. She argues that the trial court failed to make findings on each objection

individually and instead relied solely on the GAL’s opinion, inappropriately abdicating its fact-

finding function.

- 24 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

¶ 88 We reject Pamela’s argument that the trial court erred in overruling her objection to the

second accounting. Pamela correctly states in her brief that we “must reverse *** if ‘an

examination of the record as a whole indicates that the decision was against the manifest weight

of the evidence.’ ” In re Estate of Berger, 166 Ill. App. 3d 1045, 1057 (1987); see also Altieri v.

Estate of Snyder, 262 Ill. App. 3d 427, 434 (1992) (supporting the standard of review on an

objection to accounting). Here, however, the record does not indicate that the trial court’s

overruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Scott and Nancy filed responses to the

objections, and Pamela filed a reply to their responses. The trial court held a hearing in which both

sides advanced their arguments on the objections, and the GAL was present to respond. The GAL

once again went through a recitation of Doris’s accounts with the court and concluded that there

was nothing untoward in the accountings. She had tried to follow the logic of Pamela’s accounting

but could not, since Pamela often was listing the incorrect amounts for accounts.

¶ 89 We share the GAL’s frustration in understanding and parsing Pamela’s objections. In her

brief, Pamela never spells out the alleged errors or discrepancies in detail, numerically or

otherwise. Instead, her assertions lack specificity: she argues that some supporting documents were

inauthentic, that the second accounting recognized “some unrealized gains in two of the investment

accounts” that were incongruous with some other tax returns, and that Nancy continued to receive

some payments for care after Doris no longer lived with her. As to whether certain payments to

Nancy were justified, the trial court found any discrepant amount speculative. This finding was

reasonable because Pamela did not provide evidence that Nancy did not continue to provide some

care, much less for which months. Furthermore, Pamela even concedes that some of her alleged

discrepancies may be due to improperly correlated time periods, which is something the GAL had

- 25 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

previously addressed in her reports. Simply put, alleging something is error does not alone make

it error.

¶ 90 Moreover, the trial court mentioned that a procedure had been set forth for objecting to

accountings, requiring either agreement of the parties or a court order. It does not appear that

Pamela’s objections proceeded by either method. Regardless, the trial court’s conclusion that the

objections were not benefitting Doris was reasonable. It remarked that Doris’s “financial well

being is there. This is a fight between siblings, and this Court has heard it.” Pamela provides us no

reason to say otherwise.

¶ 91 D. Attorney Fees

¶ 92 Lastly, Pamela argues that the trial court erred in granting only $5000 in attorney fees to

her counsel. She argues that the trial court’s determination on her fee petition was vague and

unsupported by reviewable factfinding. Instead, the trial court conducted “an estimate” of its view

of the case.

¶ 93 Likewise, she argues that the trial court failed to do a full inquiry with proper factfinding

in awarding opposing counsel $60,000 in fees, including failure to discuss the reasonableness of

the fees requested. She argues that this court should reverse the trial court’s August 8, 2019, order,

which granted her only $5000 in fees while granting the guardian’s petition in full, and remand for

a full evidentiary inquiry on both attorney fee petitions.

¶ 94 We reject Pamela’s arguments over attorney fees. Under the terms of the FSA, a prevailing

party is entitled to recover costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, from the non-

prevailing parties in connection with litigation related to the FSA. The FSA defines a prevailing

party as a party who “receives substantially the relief desired, whether by settlement, dismissal,

summary judgment, judgment or otherwise.” The parties under the FSA were Doris, Scott, Nancy,

- 26 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

Pamela, Bruce, and Wells Fargo. While we will not overturn a trial court’s award of attorney fees

for a representative unless they are manifestly or palpably erroneous (In re Estate of Coleman, 262

Ill. App. 3d 297, 299 (1994)), Pamela was not a representative. Therefore, we apply the typical

abuse-of-discretion standard to her fee petition. See City of McHenry v. Suvada, 2011 IL App (2d)

100534, ¶ 17.

¶ 95 Here, it is difficult to say whether Pamela substantially prevailed on any of her motions or

petitions. In our disposition we have already determined that the trial court did not err in denying

her motion to compel discovery, denying her motion to remove Scott as guardian, and overruling

her objection to the second accounting. In its partial award of fees, the trial court cited to only

some minor objections of benefit to the estate, including whether Nancy’s fees for continued care

of Doris were justified and whether Doris’s life insurance was listed in the accounting. We note

that Pamela’s challenge to Nancy’s fees for care and her request to disclose Doris’s life insurance

were but two of her many objections to the accountings. Furthermore, we have already discussed

that the alleged discrepancies in Nancy’s fees were speculative, and as to Doris’s life insurance,

Scott had disclosed it on the first accounting, and he readily disclosed it again in response to the

objection to the second accounting.

¶ 96 Under these facts, we cannot say that the trial court’s decision to award Pamela $5000 in

fees was an abuse of discretion. We agree with the trial court that it was difficult to quantify the

value of fees connected with successful actions, and if anything, its award of $5000 for Pamela

was magnanimous.

¶ 97 Furthermore, the record does not support that the trial court awarded $60,000 in fees to

opposing counsel, as Pamela contends. Rather, the August 8, 2019, order awarded $22,168.47 in

attorney fees and costs to Scott and Nancy’s firm for the period of October 1, 2018, through April

- 27 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U

5, 2019. It found those fees necessary and reasonable. As noted in the fee petition, Scott and

Nancy’s counsel stated that fees were higher than in a typical guardianship due to the contested

issues and complications arising therefrom, including a thorough review of the first accounting;

frequent contact with clients, opposing counsel, and the GAL; and numerous court appearances.

The record supports these assertions. For instance, there were at least two lengthy hearings during

the relevant period, one on Pamela’s motion to compel discovery and another on her motion to

reconsider, at which Scott and Nancy substantially prevailed. Accordingly, Pamela has failed to

demonstrate that the actual award of $22,168.47 was manifestly erroneous.

¶ 98 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 99 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the March 22, 2019, and August 8, 2019, orders of

the Du Page County circuit court.

¶ 100 Affirmed.

- 28 -