In re Estate of Levert
Key Takeaways
- 1 Guardianship court lacked jurisdiction to order reimbursement from GoFundMe funds never brought into the estate.
- 2 A guardian seeking reimbursement from third-party-held funds must use the Probate Act's citation procedure under section 16-1.
- 3 Relevant for probate and guardianship attorneys advising guardians on marshaling estate assets and pursuing reimbursement claims.
Summary
Ernest David Levert Jr. suffered a severe stroke in April 2024 and was transferred to Chicago for treatment. His mother, Dr. Rhonda Hagey-Levert, was appointed temporary guardian in October 2024. His wife, Ivory Levert, created and managed a GoFundMe campaign linked to a joint bank account she held with Ernest. Ernest died in January 2025. After his death, Rhonda filed a petition for reimbursement of $119,442.93 in care expenses, asking the circuit court to direct Ivory to pay from the GoFundMe funds. The circuit court granted the petition and ordered Ivory to pay. Ivory appealed.
The Illinois First District reversed, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to order reimbursement from the GoFundMe funds because those funds were never properly brought into Ernest's guardianship estate. The court identified the citation proceeding under section 16-1 of the Probate Act as the required mechanism for determining whether third-party-held funds belong to an estate, a procedure Rhonda never invoked. Because probate administration is a proceeding in rem acting on the estate as the res, personal jurisdiction over Ivory alone could not supply the missing authority. Merely listing the GoFundMe campaign as a 'believed' asset in a report in lieu of accounting was insufficient to bring it within the court's jurisdiction.
For practitioners, this decision underscores that guardians and estate representatives must follow the Probate Act's citation procedure to marshal disputed assets into an estate before seeking reimbursement from those assets. Equitable concerns, however compelling, cannot override the statutory framework.
Key Holdings
1. A guardianship court lacks jurisdiction to order reimbursement from funds never properly brought into the ward's estate through the Probate Act's citation procedure under 755 ILCS 5/16-1.
2. Probate administration is a proceeding in rem; personal jurisdiction over a third party cannot substitute for subject matter authority over funds not established as part of the estate.
3. Listing a potential asset as 'believed' to exist in a report in lieu of final accounting is insufficient to bring that asset within the guardianship court's jurisdiction.
4. A guardian's right to reimbursement under the Probate Act is limited to the estate's assets; equitable principles do not authorize reimbursement from funds outside the estate.