Respondent (Rimas) became attorney-in-fact for his father (Eugenius) when Eugenius' wife died. Rimas arranged over the next several years for Eugenius's funds to be placed in joint accounts with him, and introduced him to an attorney who assisted him in executing a new will which substantially benefited Rimas to the detriment of his 2 siblings, who filed petition alleging that Rimas had breached his fiduciary duties to their father. Court properly ordered Rimas and his wife to reimburse Eugenius's estate for "inter vivos" gifts. Court wrongly concluded that it had no discretion to determine whether to order prejudgment interest; remanded for court to exercise its discretion and make equitable circumstance analysis. Once a person becomes an agent for another, he owes him a common law fiduciary duty, creating a presumption of fraud on any transaction involving his principal and benefiting himself as the agent. All deposits benefiting Rimas were made after creation of fiduciary relationship, and all accounts were opened at a bank where Rimas's wife worked during relevant times. Court erred in setting aside will, as the conduct of the attorney who prepared it did not create presumption that Rimas was instrucmental in procurement of will, and attorney testified that he was confident that Eugenius could make his own decisions. (CARTER and O'BRIEN, concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Wills