Background
After Ruth Gerdes died, her grandson Brian Schafer became executor of her estate and questioned financial transactions made while her granddaughter, Julie Hampson, held power of attorney for property. The estate filed multiple citation-related petitions seeking information and recovery of assets. The circuit court denied those petitions without prejudice on October 25, 2024, but ordered the parties to cooperate in obtaining bank records and later required Hampson to provide an accounting.
Following evidentiary hearings, the circuit court ordered Hampson to reimburse the estate $8,282.03 for unexplained transactions, plus $535.18 for a stove refund and $200 in late fees, while rejecting other objections. It later imposed $4,908 in attorney fees and $1,300 in sanctions against estate attorney David Reid under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 for groundless or factually unsupported filings. The estate appealed the citation ruling, accounting-related orders, and sanctions order.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court dismissed the challenge to the October 25, 2024, order for lack of jurisdiction. Because the order finally determined rights in the estate proceeding under Rule 304(b)(1), the estate had to appeal within 30 days. Its September 8, 2025, notice of appeal was untimely, and a later objection concerning a bank subpoena did not qualify as a postjudgment motion directed against the citation ruling.
The court affirmed the May 19, June 20, and August 19, 2025, orders. Most of the estate’s arguments were forfeited because its brief lacked relevant authority, record citations, or coherent legal analysis. On the surviving issues, the court held that the accounting determinations were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and that Hampson had adequately explained the disputed transactions or had been ordered to repay amounts she could not substantiate. It also affirmed the Rule 137 sanctions because the estate failed to address the sanctioned filings specifically, while the trial court’s detailed oral findings adequately explained the award.
The appellate court separately found that Hampson’s attorney, Jedediah McClure, had cited five nonexistent cases and misrepresented several real decisions, apparently after using generative AI without adequately checking its output. The court ordered McClure to show cause within 21 days why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 375, with any sanction to be addressed in a separate order.
Key Takeaways
- An order finally determining a right or status in an ongoing estate administration must be appealed within 30 days under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(1), even if labeled “without prejudice.”
- An appellate argument may be forfeited when counsel fails to supply relevant authority, record citations, and developed legal analysis; an appellate court will not reconstruct the argument.
- Lawyers remain responsible for verifying AI-assisted filings. Citing fictitious authorities or misrepresenting real cases can violate appellate rules and professional-conduct duties and may support sanctions.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates two independent risks for appellate practitioners. Probate orders can become immediately appealable before an estate closes, making a missed Rule 304(b)(1) deadline jurisdictionally fatal. Even when jurisdiction exists, deficient briefing can forfeit otherwise reviewable claims.
The decision also delivers a forceful warning about generative AI in legal practice: using the technology is not prohibited, but counsel must verify every authority and proposition before filing. The court treated invented citations as an egregious professional failure rather than a harmless technical defect. The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is nonprecedential except as permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).