Background
After Judy C. Agno died in January 2021, an administrator to collect, Paul Franciszkowicz, was appointed for her estate and designated Naomi Laboy as manager of Advanced Healthcare Services, LLC (AHS), for day-to-day operations. When Joseph Pieper later replaced Franciszkowicz as administrator with the will annexed, Pieper separately designated Laboy as AHS manager.
Maria Cristina Agno-Chambers, acting as trustee of two trusts, sought declarations that the two designations were void and that AHS membership interests were not estate property, or were limited to a 33.33% estate interest. Ownership of AHS was disputed: the record contained an operating agreement and later purported assignments that did not clearly establish whether Judy personally, her estate, or her trust held the relevant interests. The probate court dismissed the challenges to both manager designations under section 2-619.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the challenge to Franciszkowicz’s designation. Under section 23-8 of the Probate Act, acts lawfully performed by an administrator before revocation of the administrator’s letters remain valid. Franciszkowicz designated Laboy before his letters were revoked, and the court concluded that the designation was an estate-benefiting act not shown to be contrary to law.
But the court reversed dismissal of the challenge to Pieper’s later designation and remanded. Section 23-8 did not apply because Pieper’s letters had not been revoked, and the asserted defenses of waiver, equitable estoppel, laches, and Rule 304(b)(1) did not conclusively defeat the trustee’s claim. Material disputes remained over any agreement to accept Pieper’s choice, notice of Pieper’s designation, and AHS ownership.
Key Takeaways
- An administrator’s pre-revocation acts may be protected by Probate Act section 23-8 even if the appointment is later replaced.
- Conflicting evidence about waiver and notice prevents dismissal based on waiver, estoppel, or laches.
- The validity of Pieper’s designation must be litigated on remand, alongside the unresolved ownership of AHS.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between actions of a removed administrator and those of a current administrator. It preserves the first designation under the Probate Act while allowing litigation over the later designation to continue.
The order is nonprecedential under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 except in the limited circumstances allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).