Karbin v. Karbin ex rel. Hibler
Illinois Supreme Court
977 N.E.2d 154 (2012)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
When Jan Karbin (plaintiff) and Marcia Karbin (defendant) married, Jan adopted Marcia’s daughter, Kara Hibler (defendant). In 1997, Marcia was in a car accident and sustained brain damage that rendered her completely disabled. Jan was appointed Marcia’s plenary guardian and provided Marcia’s full-time care in their Illinois home until 2004, when his worsening Parkinson’s disease precluded him from full-time caregiving. He transferred the plenary guardianship to Kara, and Marcia moved to Kara’s home in Ohio. Three years later, Jan petitioned for divorce. Kara, on Marcia’s behalf, filed a counterpetition also seeking divorce. Jan subsequently moved to voluntarily dismiss his divorce petition, arguing that he never wanted to divorce Marcia and filed the petition only at Kara’s behest. The trial court granted Jan’s motion. Jan then moved to dismiss Marcia’s counterpetition for divorce, arguing that under Illinois precedent, plenary guardians like Kara lacked authority to pursue the dissolution of a ward’s marriage. The trial court agreed, dismissing the counterpetition. The appellate court affirmed. Kara appealed, arguing that Jan wished to sustain the marriage for financial reasons and Kara should be allowed to pursue dissolution because it was in Marcia’s best interests.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Freeman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 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.

