In re Estate of Cancik
Illinois Supreme Court
476 N.E.2d 738, 106 Ill. 2d 11 (1985)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Edward C. Cancik had a family mausoleum constructed in Woodlawn Cemetery. Edward contracted with the Woodlawn Cemetery Association to maintain the mausoleum, putting $4,150 in a trust fund as a partial payment. Edward executed a will giving his personal effects to his cousin, Charles E. Cancik (plaintiff), and directing the residue of Edward’s estate to go into a testamentary trust for the care of the mausoleum. Edward’s will declared that his relatives were intentionally omitted from his will, with the exception of Charles. After Edward’s death, Edward’s estate was valued at more than $200,000. The Woodlawn Cemetery Association only needed $10,850 to provide perpetual maintenance of the mausoleum, significantly less than the residue of Edward’s estate. The probate court appointed Thomas S. Chuhak (defendant) as guardian ad litem to represent Edward’s unknown heirs. Both Charles and Chuhak argued that excess residue of Edward’s estate should be placed into a trust, but Charles argued that he should be the trust’s sole beneficiary and Chuhak argued that the trust should be distributed according to intestate succession, which would include 12 heirs in Czechoslovakia. The circuit court awarded the 12 heirs the excess trust estate. Charles appealed, the appellate court affirmed, and Charles again appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ward, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
