The Illinois Probate Act permits persons who cared for a deceased person to be paid the reasonable value of the services they provided to the decedent. However, Illinois law distinguishes between services provided by relatives and those who are not relatives. The distinction is illustrated by a recent case involving claims filed by two women against the estate of their deceased aunt.
Carol Coffey and Christine Graves provided care for their aunt, Zoe Templeton, during the few years prior to Zoe’s death. Zoe lived with Christine. Christine provided Zoe shelter and three meals daily, did Zoe’s laundry, helped Zoe move around, checked her blood-pressure, and provided other care. Christine sat with Zoe for an estimated 24 hours per week because Zoe did not care to be alone. Carol also stayed with Zoe approximately 24 hours per week; she often helped Zoe with her contact lenses, which often bothered Zoe, by removing and reinserting them after they were rinsed or replaced, and she drove Zoe on errands.
Carol and Christine did not establish fees for their services to Zoe or invoice her while she was alive. Zoe never paid Carol or Christine for services, but there was evidence that Zoe expected Christine and Carol would be paid for the services they provided to her.
After Zoe’s death, Christine and Carol filed separate claims in the amounts of $71,000 and $30,000, respectively, against Zoe’s estate for services they provided to Zoe during her life. The executor of Zoe’s estate denied the claims. The probate judge conducted a bench trial, also denying Carol and Christine’s claims for the reason that the evidence presented by Christine and Carol did not establish they had an express agreement with Zoe or that there was an expectation that they would be paid for their services. Carol and Christine appealed the denial of their claims.
The Appellate Court reviewed the disparate standards that apply to the presumption of whether services were rendered gratuitously. Under Illinois law, services provided by someone who is not a relative of the decedent are presumed to have been rendered with an expectation of payment. When rendered by a relative, those same services are presumed to have been given gratuitously. The presumption in either case may be rebutted by evidence presented to the court. The amount of evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption that services were to be gratuitous depends on the facts of each case, and the presumption diminishes proportionately with the remoteness of the degree of kinship, the character of the relationship, and the nature of the services.
The Court reversed the probate court’s decision, finding there was sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that Christine and Carol’s services were gratuitous. In addition to the fact that the services rendered were substantial and provided over an extended period of time, the court placed value on Zoe’s statements (to other relatives) that she expected Christine and Carol to be compensated for their services as caregivers and that she expected Carol and Christine to file a claim in Zoe’s estate.
The expense and delay the parties experienced in this case was avoidable with one or more very simple written agreements or modifications to the decedent’s estate plan.