Success Story - Strategic Defense in Probate Property Dispute

Background:
In a contentious probate matter involving a disputed deed to residential property, our client, the administrator of the estate, seeks to recover assets after the deed was recorded by the decedent’s neighbor. The case centers on reclaiming the property through filing a citation to recover assets. Lavelle Law represents the estate administrator, navigating complex proceedings that have included summary judgment motions, amended pleadings, and extensive discovery disputes as the matter advances towards trial.

Challenges:
The opposing party attempted to introduce new witnesses shortly before the scheduled trial date, prompting additional discovery demands. Despite court orders compelling the production of witness contact information and requiring in-person depositions within a strict 60-day window, compliance issues arose, including incomplete contact details and a key witness refusing to appear for deposition in Illinois. The opposing side filed motions to quash subpoenas, seek protective orders for out-of-state deposition alternatives, and repeatedly challenge prior rulings, creating procedural hurdles and delays in preparing for trial.

The trial court granted our motion, barring the non-compliant witnesses from testifying at trial due to failure to sit for deposition as ordered. This effectively precluded key testimony from the opposing side. The court also denied related protective and quash motions as moot and affirmed prior dispositive orders.

The opposing party then filed an interlocutory appeal under Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1), asserting that the Trial court’s denial of her motion for a protective order for her witness was injunctive in nature, permitting Appellate jurisdiction under Rule 307(a)(1). This appeal completely stalled the trial proceedings until the appellate court could consider the issues of the case.

Results:
On March 20, 2026, the appellate court entered its ruling dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In its ruling, the appellate court noted that “The key to a Rule 307(a)(1) appeal is whether the order relates to an 'injunction' versus some other type of interlocutory order.” Zitella v. Mike’s Transportation, LLC, 2018 IL App (2d) 160702, ¶ 13. “Illinois courts have construed the meaning of ‘injunction’ in Rule 307(a)(1) broadly.” Skolnick v. Altheimer & Gray, 191 Ill. 2d 214, 221 (2000); see In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247, 262 (1989). Still, “not every nonfinal order of a court is appealable, even if it compels a party to do or not do a particular thing.” Short Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc., 356 Ill. App. 3d 958, 960 (2005).

Ultimately, the Appellate Court held that the order barring the witness from testifying was essentially a discovery order “relating to the control of the court’s own docket” and is proper as part of the “inherent power possessed by any court to compel the appearance of witnesses, to regulate their testimony, and to control the court’s own docket.” Zitella, 2018 IL App (2d) 160702, ¶ 14. For this reason, the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction, and the appeal was dismissed.

This outcome strengthened the estate’s position, advancing the case toward resolution while protecting our client’s interests in our attempts to recover the disputed property.