Background
Glenn L. Felner executed his will on May 24, 2020, before two witnesses participating through two-way audio-video communication. Richard Davis and Katelyn Davis were together in Palos Heights, Illinois, while Kathleen Davis, an employee of the law firm that prepared the will, remotely guided Felner through the execution. The witnesses testified that they could see and hear Felner, watched him sign the document, understood that he was signing his will, and believed him to be of sound mind and memory.
After Felner died, Donald J. Russ Jr. petitioned to admit the will to probate and was appointed independent executor. The petitioners later initiated a trust contest alleging, among other matters, undue influence by Felner’s second wife, Bonnie Felner. Dylan Britt alone petitioned for formal proof of the will under section 6-21 of the Probate Act. Following a proof-of-will hearing, the Cook County circuit court admitted the will to probate, and Dylan Britt, Sara Crocenzi, and Lorna Sonen appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court first held that the Electronic Wills, Electronic Estate Planning Documents, and Remote Witnesses Act governed the will’s remote execution. Although the Act became effective after Felner signed the will, it expressly gave effect to remote witnessing beginning March 26, 2020, and codified procedural requirements substantially similar to those in the governor’s COVID-19 executive order. The proponents therefore had to establish substantial compliance with the Act’s remote-witnessing requirements.
The court held that the circuit court’s finding of substantial compliance was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The testimony established the essential safeguards of the statutory scheme: contemporaneous audio-video participation, observation of Felner signing or initialing the pages, acknowledgment that the document was his will, and eventual attestation by both witnesses. Although the evidence was weak or absent regarding such matters as retention of the recording, Felner’s express statement of his location, page legibility, and the mechanics and timing of document transmission, those deviations did not undermine the execution’s integrity, and the petitioners identified no resulting prejudice. The court therefore affirmed admission of the will to probate.
Key Takeaways
- Illinois’s Remote Witnesses Act applies retroactively to remote witnessing conducted on or after March 26, 2020, including a will executed before the Act’s enactment.
- Substantial compliance turns on whether the statutory purposes were achieved and whether deviations prejudiced an interested party; separate proof of strict compliance with every procedural step is unnecessary.
- A formal proof-of-will proceeding addresses the statutory prerequisites for probate, while claims such as undue influence, fraud, and lack of testamentary capacity may be litigated through a separate will contest.
Why It Matters
This decision provides the first Illinois appellate construction of “substantially complied” under the Remote Witnesses Act. It confirms that gaps in proof concerning individual remote-execution formalities do not automatically invalidate a will when the evidence reliably establishes the execution’s essential safeguards and no interested party shows prejudice.
The ruling is particularly significant for estates involving documents executed remotely during the COVID-19 emergency, when execution practices may not have conformed precisely to every requirement later codified by the legislature.