Background
Ernest David Levert Jr. suffered a severe stroke at age 33 in April 2024, leaving him incapacitated and in need of intensive medical care. His mother, Dr. Rhonda Hagey-Levert, relocated from Texas to Illinois to assist with his treatment and, in October 2024, petitioned the Cook County Circuit Court for appointment as temporary guardian of Ernest’s estate and person. The court granted that appointment. Meanwhile, Ernest’s wife, Ivory Levert, opened a GoFundMe campaign titled “Support Ernest Levert Jr’s Healing Journey,” which raised approximately $97,187 in donations intended to cover medical bills, equipment, home modifications, transportation, and related family expenses. Ernest died on January 8, 2025, from complications of his stroke.
After Ernest’s death, Rhonda filed a petition for reimbursement of $119,442.93 in expenses she claimed to have personally incurred for Ernest’s care between June and December 2024. Because no assets had been marshaled into the guardianship estate, Rhonda sought reimbursement directly from the GoFundMe campaign funds held by Ivory. Ivory objected, arguing that the GoFundMe campaign was never part of the guardianship estate and that the probate court had no jurisdiction over those funds.
The circuit court, invoking equitable considerations and noting that Rhonda had paid out-of-pocket for care that the GoFundMe campaign was ostensibly created to cover, granted the petition and directed Ivory to pay Rhonda $119,442.93 from the GoFundMe campaign proceeds. Ivory appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the reimbursement order, vacating paragraph 2 of the circuit court’s May 29, 2025 order and remanding for further proceedings. The court held that the probate court lacked jurisdiction over the GoFundMe campaign funds because those funds were never properly brought within the guardianship estate. The campaign was opened and managed solely by Ivory; Ernest had no access to or involvement with it. Rhonda never invoked the citation procedure under section 16-1 of the Illinois Probate Act — the statutory mechanism by which a guardian can seek a judicial determination that property held by a third party belongs to the ward’s estate.
The court rejected each of Rhonda’s counterarguments. Guardianship proceedings are in rem in nature, operating on the res of the estate, so personal jurisdiction over Ivory did not authorize the court to reach assets outside that estate. Merely listing the GoFundMe campaign as a “believed” asset in Rhonda’s report in lieu of final accounting — without a formal citation proceeding or a court order declaring it an estate asset — did not confer jurisdiction. The court also rejected the argument that a link between the GoFundMe campaign and a joint bank account gave Ernest an ownership interest in the campaign funds, finding no authority to support that inference.
Justice Ocasio wrote separately to note the broader social context of crowdfunded medical care and to suggest that, as a matter of equity and policy, GoFundMe proceeds raised for a ward’s benefit could arguably be treated as estate assets — but agreed that existing law and the specific facts here did not permit that result.
Key Takeaways
- A probate court’s jurisdiction in guardianship proceedings is limited to assets that have been properly brought into the ward’s estate; it cannot order disbursement from funds held by a third party that were never made part of the estate.
- To reach funds in a third party’s possession — including a crowdfunding campaign opened by a family member — a guardian must follow the citation-to-discover-assets procedure under 755 ILCS 5/16-1, not simply list the funds as a believed asset in an accounting report.
- Equitable considerations, however compelling, do not expand the probate court’s statutory authority; the court cannot order reimbursement from outside the estate merely because fairness might seem to require it.
- Linking a crowdfunding campaign to a joint bank account does not automatically give the ward an ownership interest in the campaign proceeds or make those proceeds part of the guardianship estate.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance for guardians and probate practitioners navigating the increasingly common intersection of online fundraising and estate administration. When a family member opens a GoFundMe campaign for a ward, those funds do not automatically become guardianship assets simply because the campaign was created for the ward’s benefit. Guardians seeking reimbursement from such funds must follow the statutory citation procedure to bring them within the court’s jurisdiction — and should do so before the ward dies, as post-death jurisdictional hurdles compound the difficulty.
The special concurrence also signals a potential area of legal development: as crowdfunded medical care becomes a routine feature of the American health care landscape, courts and legislatures may be called upon to clarify when and how such funds should be treated as estate assets, balancing the equities between caregiving family members and those who manage the fundraising.