Kamberos v. Magnuson
Illinois Appellate Court
510 N.E.2d 112, 156 Ill. App. 3d 800 (1987)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
John Abens, a married man with three children, had a mistress, Patricia Murray (plaintiff). Abens and Murray, who was also married, were in a relationship from 1968 or 1969 to Abens’s death in 1981. During their relationship, Abens often gave Murray gifts of clothing, jewelry, cars, and money. Murray left her marital home in 1976, moving into an apartment in the name of Abens’s sister-in-law, Ann Magnuson (defendant). Magnuson paid the rent on the apartment, with Abens reimbursing Magnuson, for about a year. Abens left Magnuson $400,000 in his will and made Magnuson coadministrator of his estate. Murray filed suit against Magnuson, seeking a constructive trust on the $400,000. Murray argued that Magnuson had promised Abens that she would look after Murray after Abens died, and Magnuson and Abens had a confidential relationship. Murray claimed that Magnuson abused her confidential relationship with Abens, and a constructive trust should be imposed on Abens’s bequest to Magnuson. Almost a year after filing suit, Murray died, and Murray’s son-in-law, A. Theodore Kamberos (plaintiff), as administrator of Murray’s estate, was substituted as plaintiff. Kamberos sought to admit testimony of Abens’s conversations with Murray, Magnuson, and Murray’s daughter, Nora Kamberos, to support his arguments. Magnuson argued that testimony regarding the conversations was barred by the Dead Man’s Act, and the trial court refused to admit evidence of these conversations. Because no other evidence to support the claim for a constructive trust existed, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Magnuson. Kamberos appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bilandic, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.