Background
Andrzej Niewolik, a Cook County resident and citizen of the United States and Poland, died in 2017. His widow, Krystyna Niewolik, and his children disputed the disposition of his estate. A Polish notarial will executed in 2008 named Krystyna as his sole heir. Three children from Niewolik’s prior marriage relied instead on a 2016 resolution of two Illinois corporations in which Niewolik held a 50% interest.
The corporate resolution provided that, upon a shareholder’s death, the shareholder’s shares would transfer to the shareholder’s living children, subject to the other shareholder’s purchase option. In the Polish probate proceeding, however, the children argued that the resolution itself was a will. The Polish trial court held that the 2008 will was valid, named Krystyna sole heir of the entire estate, and that the corporate resolution was not a valid testamentary disposition. A Polish appellate court affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the Cook County circuit court’s admission of the 2008 Polish will to probate and its application of res judicata. The Polish proceeding produced a final judgment on the merits after appellate review was exhausted. The siblings had submitted the corporate resolution to the Polish court and argued that it was a will; they therefore could have raised their alternative theory that it was a non-testamentary instrument transferring corporate interests outside probate in that litigation.
The court also found identity of causes of action under Illinois’s transactional test because both proceedings arose from the same operative facts: Niewolik’s death, the 2008 will, and the effect of the corporate resolution on the businesses. The siblings were parties in both cases, and the Estate was in privity with Krystyna because she was its sole beneficiary. The siblings waived any forum-selection objection to the Polish court by litigating the resolution there.
Key Takeaways
- Res judicata bars claims that were litigated and claims that could have been raised in the earlier action.
- Changing from a testamentary theory to a non-testamentary contract theory did not create a new cause of action where both theories concerned the same corporate resolution and death-triggered transfer.
- A party may waive a contractual forum-selection clause by submitting the dispute to another court.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the breadth of Illinois’s transactional approach to res judicata in probate disputes. Parties contesting a will and a related ownership-transfer instrument should advance their available theories in the initial proceeding, particularly after voluntarily litigating the instrument’s effect before a foreign court.
This Rule 23 order is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances allowed by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1).