Kramer et al v. Koeller

Filing 84

OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Respondent Robert M. Koeller's Motion for Summary Judgment 67 is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. The Court enters summary judgment in favor of Respondent and against Petitioners on Petitioner's claims. The Court denies summary judgment on Respondent's Counterclaim I. The matter will proceed to trial as scheduled on Respondent's counterclaims. (LB)

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 1 of 51

E-FILED

Thursday, 09 September, 2021 11:43:45 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
RACHEL M. KRAMER and
CLAIRE E. KRAMER,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. KOELLER,
individually, and in his capacity
as Successor Trustee of the
REVOCABLE TRUST
AGREEMENT of BARBARA K.
KRAMER a/k/a BARBARA
J. KRAMER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 19-cv-3247

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Respondent Robert M.
Koeller’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 67) (Motion). The parties
consented to proceed before this Court. Consent to the Exercise of
Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge and Reference Order
entered February 20, 2020 (d/e 15).
Barbara Kramer died on November 11, 2018. She was not married at
the time and she had two adult surviving children, Petitioners Rachel
Kramer and Claire Kramer (collectively the Daughters). Barbara Kramer
Page 1 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 2 of 51

also had a surviving brother Respondent Robert Koeller (Koeller). Koeller
is a licensed attorney and lives and practices in Indianapolis, Indiana. On
October 8, 2012, Barbara Kramer executed a will (2012 Will) and the
Revocable Trust Agreement of Barbara K. Kramer a/k/a Barbara J. Kramer
(Trust). The 2012 Will directed that the residuary of Barbara Kramer’s
estate should be distributed to the Trust. The Trust provided that the trust
corpus should be divided one-half to Koeller and one-fourth to each of the
Daughters.
The Daughters brought this action in Macoupin County, Illinois,
Circuit Court to revoke the 2012 Will and Trust alleging that Koeller exerted
undue influence over Barbara Kramer in order to receive half of the Trust.
Notice of Removal (d/e 1); attached Amended Complaint to Declare Void
and Set Aside Revocable Trust Agreement of Barbara K. Kramer a/k/a
Barbara J. Kramer and Last Will and Testament of Barbara K. Kramer
(Amended Complaint). Koeller removed the action to this Court based on
diversity removal jurisdiction. Notice of Removal. Koeller denies that he
exerted any undue influence over Barbara Kramer, and further, filed
counterclaims against the Daughters. The first counterclaim alleged that
Rachel Kramer violated the Illinois Disposition of Remains Act, 755 ILCS
65/1 et seq., because she took possession the cremated remains of
Page 2 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 3 of 51

Barbara Kramer. Koeller alleges that as executor of Barbara Kramer’s
estate, he was entitled to determine the disposition of Barbara Kramer’s
remains. Respondent’s Counterclaims (d/e 19), Counterclaim I; See 755
ILCS 65/5 and 65/50. Koeller now asks for summary judgment on the
Daughter’s claims and on Counterclaim I. The Respondent does not seek
summary judgment on his Counterclaims II, III, and IV. The Daughters
oppose the Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is
ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Barbara Kramer moved to Bunker Hill, Illinois, in 1972. Motion,
attached Deposition of Rachel Kramer (d/e 68 and 69) (Rachel Kramer
Deposition), at 116. In 1983, she and her husband divorced. Her husband
had a Small Business Administration (SBA) loan (SBA Loan) for his
business and after the divorce, the SBA sought to collect the SBA Loan
from Barbara Kramer. Koeller wrote a letter on his attorney letterhead to
the attorney who represented the ex-husband complaining that Barbara
Kramer was not supposed to be responsible for that debt. Koeller
Deposition Exhibits (d/e 70, 71, and 72), Exhibit 29, Letter dated January 7,
1985 from Koeller to attorney Connie Matthews, Esquire (d/e 72, at 41 of

Page 3 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 4 of 51

48). 1 Koeller also found an attorney for Barbara Kramer to represent her
with the SBA and that attorney secured Barbara Kramer’s release from any
obligation for the SBA Loan. Koeller Deposition, at 129-32.
In January 1995, Ruth Koeller, the mother of Koeller and Barbara
Kramer, deeded a farm located in Pike County, Illinois, to Koeller and
Barbara Kramer. The Koeller family members referred to this farm as the
East Farm. Koeller Deposition, at 15-21. Ruth Koeller also owned
additional farmland in Pike County. Koeller traveled to Pike County
regularly in the 1990s to manage the family farmland, including the East
Farm. At some point, Koeller and Barbara Kramer sold the East Farm to
the tenant. Koeller Deposition, at 80; Koeller Deposition Exhibits, Exhibit
15-21, 30, Letter from Koeller to Ruth Koeller dated March 8, 1996 (d/e 72,
at 43 of 48).
Ruth Koeller died in 2002. Before her death, she asked Koeller to
take care of his sister, Barbara Kramer. Koeller testified that his
relationship with Barbara Kramer improved and they became close after
their mother died. Koeller Deposition, at 114; Motion, attached Deposition
of Mary Burns (Burns Deposition), at 19.

1

The Court cites to the CM/ECF page number for the Koeller Deposition Group Exhibits).

Page 4 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 5 of 51

Ruth Koeller left much of her estate to Koeller and Barbara Kramer,
including stock and other securities.2 Koeller handled the process of
dividing the securities into separate accounts for Barbara Kramer and
himself. Koeller and Barbara Kramer both maintained brokerage accounts
at several brokerage firms and financial advisory firms (hereinafter financial
advisors). Koeller Deposition, at 91-93. See. Barbara Kramer asked
Koeller for the names of the financial advisors he used, and Barbara
Kramer often used the same ones. Koeller Deposition, at 94; see Rachel
Kramer Deposition, at 51-52 (Barbara Kramer sought out professional
advice for the handling of her financial affairs.).
Barbara Kramer authorized her financial advisors to send Koeller
copies of her investment account statements. Koeller Deposition, at 93;
see Koeller Deposition Exhibits, Exhibit 16, Letter dated April 27, 2009 from
RBC Broker Cliff Greenlee to Decedent (d/e 71, at 17 of 80), and Exhibit
18, Decedent’s RBC Account Statement for the period September 1, 2010
to September 30, 2010 (d/e 71, at 25-29 of 80). Barbara Kramer put
Koeller’s name on her bank accounts and made at least one account
payable on death to Koeller. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 150-51; Claire

2

Ruth Koeller had one other child who died as a baby. Koeller and Barbara Kramer were her only
surviving children. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 209.

Page 5 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 6 of 51

Koeller Deposition, at 77; Koeller Deposition Exhibits, Group Exhibit 11 and
12, United Community Bank of Bunker Hill Account Statements and
Account Registers (d/e 70, at 51-62 of 62 and d/e 71, at 1-8 of 80). Since
the 1980s, Barbara Kramer authorized Koeller to have access to her safety
deposit boxes. Koeller Deposition, at 88; see Koeller Deposition Exhibits,
Exhibit 14, Safety Deposit Box Advice Statement (d/e 71, at 15 of 80).
Koeller reviewed Barbara Kramer’s investment account statements
from her financial advisors. Barbara Kramer’s financial advisors sometimes
spoke to Koeller about Barbara Kramer’s accounts and Koeller passed
along information from financial advisors to Barbara Kramer. Koeller
Deposition, at 94-95. Barbara Kramer also spoke directly to her financial
advisors about her accounts. On occasion, Barbara Kramer asked Koeller
a question about her holdings. Koeller Deposition Exhibits, Group Exhibit
22, Emails and attachments between Koeller, Decedent, and
Representatives of Brokerage and Investment Advisory Firms (d/e 71, at
49-59, 64-75 of 80, and d/e 72, at 9 of 48). Barbara Kramer, however, did
not give Koeller authority over her accounts. Koeller Deposition, at 136;
Motion, Exhibit A, Affidavit of Matthew Rice ¶ 4.
Barbara Kramer was diagnosed with cancer in 2002 after her mother
died. She lived with Koeller and his wife Marlene Koeller in Indianapolis for
Page 6 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 7 of 51

five or six months while she underwent chemotherapy treatments. Burns
Deposition, at 20-21; Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 121; Claire Kramer
Deposition, at 75. Thereafter, Barbara Kramer visited Koeller and Marlene
Koeller about once a year in Indianapolis and stayed for four to five days
during these visits. Koeller Deposition, at 21-22; Claire Kramer Deposition,
at 98.
Rachel Kramer left home for college in 1979. After completing her
education, she lived in Cincinnati, Ohio. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 9596. Claire Kramer left home to go to college shortly after her parents’
divorce in 1983. Claire Kramer Deposition, at 87-89. In 2004, Claire
Kramer moved to Hamel, Illinois, but commuted to St. Louis to work. Claire
Kramer Deposition, at 10-14, 17.
Claire Kramer has epilepsy, vision problems including pigmentary
dispersion and a detached retina, and deterioration of the cerebellum. She
sometimes could not drive because of her epilepsy and had to get rides to
work in St. Louis during those times. Claire Kramer Deposition, at 10-16.
Barbara Kramer told Rachel Kramer that she wanted to take care of
herself and support her Daughters, particularly Claire Kramer:
[Barbara Kramer] has told me many times that all she
wanted for Claire was the ability for her to stop working, and be
able to not have to drive to St. Louis because she has chronic
problems; and she wished that I didn't have to have 50 million
Page 7 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 8 of 51

jobs, and wasn't so, you know, dependent on -- she said that
many times, and so she wanted for herself to not have to rely
on people, and wanted to support us.
Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 54; see Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 159.
The Daughters had no knowledge of the nature of Barbara Kramer’s
relationship with Koeller. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 74-75; Claire
Kramer Deposition, at 72.
Rachel Kramer opined in her deposition that Koeller did not approve
of Rachel Kramer’s sexual orientation:
I believe that he was -- I believe that he is a bit of a racist
homophobe, and I think that he influenced her for a time to
have a negative reaction to me because I chose to be with a
woman, and I think ironically she turned the page, and he didn't.
She had a lot to say about how she had come to understand a
much different way of thinking.
....
In her very final moments she asked for my partner to speak to,
the very last person she asked to speak to was Mary Lynn, not
any member -- she is a member of the family, but it was her
that she asked to speak to, and I believe that Robert and
Marlene3 both influenced her first way of thinking, and she
didn't want to -- and she changed.
Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 140.
Rachel Kramer sometimes wanted to come to Indianapolis to see
Barbara Kramer when Barbara Kramer visited the Koellers, and on some of
those occasions, the Koellers would not allow Rachel Kramer to stay with

3

Marlene was the wife of Robert Koeller.

Page 8 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 9 of 51

them to visit with her mother. Rachel Kramer also was not invited to a 50th
wedding anniversary party and a birthday party. Rachel Kramer did not
identify the dates of these events, the person hosting these events, the
couple celebrating an anniversary, or the person celebrating a birthday.
Rachel Kramer also stated that the Koellers did not visit with her when they
came to Cincinnati. The Koeller’s daughter Kristin Koeller Sneider lived in
Cincinnati. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 41-42,143-44,169.
On July 10, 2002, Barbara Kramer executed a will (2002 Will) drafted
by attorney Dana Eastman of Alton, Illinois. Sometime after July 10, 2002
and before September 7, 2012, Barbara Kramer asked Koeller to draft a
codicil (Draft Codicil) to the 2002 Will.4 Koeller did some estate planning in
his law practice. Koeller Deposition, at 135. The Draft Codicil bequeathed
Barbara Kramer’s piano to Claire Kramer and two rings to Koeller’s
daughter Kristin Koeller Sneider. Koeller included the bequest to his
daughter Kristin Koeller Sneider because Barbara Kramer told him to do
so. Koeller Deposition, at 30. Barbara Kramer asked Claire Kramer if she
was interested in the rings. Claire Kramer said she did not think so, but
Rachel Kramer might want them. Claire Kramer Deposition, at 58; see

4

Neither party has submitted the signed Codicil, and neither party cites any evidence of the date the
Codicil was signed.

Page 9 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 10 of 51

Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 63-64. Rachel Kramer believed Koeller’s wife
Marlene Koeller exerted undue influence over Barbara Kramer to get her to
leave the rings to the Koellers’ daughter Kristin. Rachel Kramer
Deposition, at 66. Rachel Kramer cited no evidence of anything Marlene
Koeller did to influence Barbara Kramer.
The Draft Codicil also authorized the Daughters to select whatever
musical pieces each desired from Barbara Kramer’s music library. The
unsigned Draft Codicil left a blank for the recipient of the remainder of the
music. Barbara Kramer told Koeller she wanted to leave the music library
to a college where a particular professor worked. The Draft Codicil
bequeathed the remainder of Barbara Kramer’s household goods and other
tangible personal property to the Daughters. Motion, accompanying
Koeller Deposition, at 26-31; Koeller Deposition Exhibits, Exhibit 3,
Unsigned Copy of Draft Codicil (d/e 70, at 13 of 62). Koeller retained the
Draft Codicil on his computer. Koeller Deposition, at 33. Barbara Kramer
executed the Codicil drafted by Koeller, but the record does not indicate the
date that Barbara Kramer executed the Codicil and does not include a copy
of the final, executed Codicil. Deposition of Robert Koeller (d/e 68 and 69)
(Koeller Deposition), at 25-27.

Page 10 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 11 of 51

In 2004, Koeller referred Barbara Kramer to attorney Robert T.
Dassow, who represented plaintiffs in a multi-district litigation against the
manufacturers of the analgesic Vioxx. Barbara Kramer participated in the
Vioxx litigation as a plaintiff. She had suffered a heart attack after taking
Vioxx for arthritis pain. Koeller Deposition, at 70-74. On December 1,
2004, attorney Dassow sent a fee agreement to Koeller for Barbara Kramer
to engage Dassow as her attorney. On September 26, 2005, attorney
Dassow sent Koeller a second fee agreement valid under New Jersey law
because Dassow decided to file her claim in New Jersey. Motion, Kramer
Deposition, Deposition Group Exhibit E, Letters from Dassow to Koeller
dated December 1, 2004 and September 26, 2005.
In 2008 or 2009, attorney Dassow secured a settlement of Barbara
Kramer’s claim in the Vioxx litigation. Barbara Kramer’s gross settlement
was $450,408.00, and her net share after payment of expenses and
attorney’s fees was $288,827.59. The undated breakdown of the payment
of her settlement showed that Barbara Kramer received a partial payment
of $121,571.98, representing of 40 percent of the net settlement, and a final
payment of $167,255.61, representing the remaining 60 percent of the net
settlement. Barbara Kramer’s handwritten savings account register
indicates that she deposited the initial payment on or about June 28, 2008
Page 11 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 12 of 51

or September 9, 2009. The handwritten record contains these two dates
written near the first deposit of the first payment. Koeller Deposition
Exhibits, Deposition Group Exhibit 12, Decedent’s Savings Account
Register (d/e 70 at 54 of 62). Barbara Kramer received the final payment
on or about December 2, 2009. The transmittal letter from attorney Dassow
was dated December 2, 2009, and the savings account register shows a
deposit of the final payment on December 4, 2009. Id. Koeller Deposition
Exhibits, Deposition Group Exhibit 10, Letter from Dassow to Decedent
dated December 2, 2009 (d/e 70, at 48 of 62).
The court approved an attorney’s fee of 32 percent of Barbara
Kramer’s gross Vioxx settlement. The fee was divided between the
attorney Dassow’s law firm, Koeller, and a firm identified as the Lanier
Firm. Koeller received $11,442.07 with the initial 40 percent payment to
Barbara Kramer and $9,379.91 with the final payment, for a total of
$20,821.98. Koeller Deposition Exhibits, Deposition Group Exhibit 10,
Settlement Distribution Receipts (d/e 70, at 49-50 of 62). Koeller testified
that attorney Dassow insisted on paying Koeller a 20 percent referral fee.
Koeller Deposition, at 73-74. Koeller stated in his deposition that he did not
represent his sister in the Vioxx litigation. Koeller, however, kept a file on
his sister’s participation in the litigation and also talked to and
Page 12 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 13 of 51

corresponded with the attorneys handling the Vioxx litigation several times
regarding Barbara Kramer’s claim. Koeller estimated that he spent over
100 hours on her participation in the Vioxx litigation, “[d]uring the five,
seven, ten years, whatever it was that it took my sister to get a settlement
from this litigation.” Koeller Deposition, at 73-75.
Barbara Kramer did not talk to Rachel Kramer or Claire Kramer about
the Vioxx settlement. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 94-95; Claire Kramer
Deposition, at 86.
Sometime before October 8, 2012, Barbara Kramer and Koeller
discussed changes to her estate plan. Barbara Kramer and Koeller
discussed location of keys, location of a lockbox, who might sell her home,
and other matters. Barbara told Koeller she intended to name him as
executor of her estate and asked Koeller how to make things easier for him
to handle her affairs. Koeller told her that she could set up a revocable
living trust. If she did, Koeller could avoid the time and expense of opening
a probate estate. Koeller said that Barbara Kramer did not mention to
whom she wanted her assets to pass at her death. Koeller Deposition, at
25, 39-40, 48. Koeller had drafted revocable living trusts in his law
practice. Koeller Deposition, at 24.

Page 13 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 14 of 51

On September 7, 2012, Barbara Kramer met with attorney Mary
Albert-Fritz of Brighton, Illinois, to prepare a new will. No one accompanied
Barbara Kramer when she went to attorney Albert-Fritz’s office. Motion,
attached Deposition of Mary Albert-Fritz (Albert-Fritz Deposition), at 13.
Koeller and attorney Albert-Fritz did not know each other. Koeller
Deposition, at 22-23; Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 59, 83. Koeller did not
provide any documents to Albert-Fritz. Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 53.
Rachel Kramer and Claire Kramer also did not know attorney Albert-Fritz.
Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 55-56; Claire Kramer Deposition, at 62.
Barbara Kramer completed an intake form for new client’s when she arrived
at Albert-Fritz’s office and stated on the form that she came “for information
about establishing a revocable trust.” Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 15 and
Albert-Fritz Deposition Exhibits, Exhibit B, Intake Form and Attorney AlbertFritz Notes (Albert-Fritz Notes) (d/e 67-9, at 16 of 46).
Barbara Kramer and attorney Albert-Fritz met by themselves without
anyone else present. Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 14. According to attorney
Albert-Fritz’s notes, Barbara Kramer stated that her brother Koeller
recommended a revocable living trust to her. Albert-Fritz Notes (d/e 67-9
at 3 of 46). Attorney Albert-Fritz also recommended a revocable living trust
to Barbara Kramer. Attorney Albert-Fritz usually recommended revocable
Page 14 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 15 of 51

living trusts to avoid probate and the publicity of probate. Albert-Fritz
Deposition, at 102-03, 114-15. A person who established a revocable
living trust needed a will that provided that the residuary of her estate would
be distributed (or “pour over”) to the trust (a “pour over will”). Albert-Fritz
Deposition, at 17. The purpose of the trust would be “to take care of her
through disability and death.” Barbara Kramer stated that she wanted
Koeller to be the successor trustee. Barbara Kramer told Albert-Fritz that
“the dispositive provision would be 50 percent to Bob Koeller, 25 percent to
Rachel, her daughter, and 25 percent to Claire, her daughter, she told me.”
Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 17-18.
Attorney Albert-Fritz explained to Barbara Kramer that she would
need to transfer her assets to the trust or change the beneficiary
designations on certain accounts to provide that the account or the
proceeds of the account would transfer to the trust at death. Albert-Fritz
Deposition, at 18-19. Attorney Albert-Fritz also prepared powers of
attorney for Barbara Kramer as part of her estate plan. Barbara Kramer
stated that she wanted Koeller to be the person to act as her power of
attorney and Claire Kramer to serve if Koeller did not. Albert-Fritz
Deposition, at 19-20.

Page 15 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 16 of 51

On October 5, 2012, Barbara Kramer and attorney Albert-Fritz again
met by themselves at attorney Albert-Fritz’s office. Barbara Kramer
mentioned at this time that she wanted two rings to go to her niece Kristen
Koeller Sneider. Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 25-26.
On October 8, 2012, Barbara Kramer executed the 2012 Will and the
Trust at the offices of attorney Albert-Fritz. Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 27.
The 2012 Will tracked the bequests of personal property in the Draft
Codicil. The 2012 Will bequeathed Barbara Kramer’s piano to Claire
Kramer and the two rings to Kristin Koeller Sneider. The Will authorized
the Daughters to select whatever musical pieces each desired from
Barbara Kramer’s music library and then bequeathed the remainder of her
music library to McKendree College. The Will bequeathed the remainder of
Barbara Kramer’s household goods and other tangible personal property to
the Daughters. Barbara Kramer told Albert-Fritz that she wanted her
personal property distributed in this way. Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 33-34.
The 2012 Will residuary clause left the residue of the estate to the
Trust. The Will appointed Koeller as the Personal Representative of
Barbara Kramer’s estate. If Koeller did not serve in that position, the Will
named Koeller’s wife Marlene Koeller as Personal Representative. AlbertFritz Deposition Exhibits, Deposition Exhibit F, Signed Copy of 2012 Will
Page 16 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 17 of 51

(2012 Will). Albert-Fritz asked Barbara Kramer to select a back-up
Personal Representative in case Koeller and Barbara Kramer “would be
smashed in a car together.” Barbara Kramer chose Koeller’s wife Marlene
Koeller. Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 34-35. Albert-Fritz said Barbara Kramer
was very certain about her selection of Personal Representative:
And I didn't -- you know, because she told me this is who
she wanted, Bob as number one, Marlene as number two, I
didn't even question, "Why aren't you naming the kids?" I didn't
because she was so clear and unwavering about it.
Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 35.
The 2012 Will contained Article VII to address the possibility that
Barbara Kramer and a beneficiary may die very close in time:
ARTICLE VII
If any beneficiary and I should die under such
circumstances as would render it doubtful whether the
beneficiary or I died first, then it shall be conclusively presumed
for the purposes of this Will that said beneficiary predeceased
me, except however, that my spouse shall be conclusively
presumed to have survived me.
2012 Will, Article VII. Attorney Albert-Fritz included this provision in all the
wills she prepared. Attorney Albert-Fritz included the reference to a spouse
Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 72-74. Rachel Kramer believed Barbara Kramer
would not have allowed her will to contain a reference to a spouse if she

Page 17 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 18 of 51

read the will. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 65-66; see Claire Kramer
Deposition, at 67.
The 2012 Will distributed the residuary estate to the Trust. The Trust
contained the dispositive provisions of Barbara Kramer’s estate plan. The
first sentence of the Trust named Barbara Kramer as the Settlor and
Trustee of the Trust:
Trust Agreement made the 8th day of October, at
Brighton, Illinois, between Barbara K. Kramer, the Settlor, and
Barbara K. Kramer, also serving at the Original Trustee of this
Agreement.
Albert-Fritz Deposition Exhibits, Deposition Exhibit D, Trust, Article II (d/e
67-9, at 20 of 46).
Article II of the Trust set forth Barbara Kramer’s powers as Settlor to
revoke or amend the Trust and named the successor Trustee after Barbara
Kramer ceased to be the Trustee. Article II provided:
ARTICLE II
Settlor may, by signed instrument delivered to the
Trustee, revoke this Agreement in whole or in part or amend it,
but no amendment changing the powers, duties, or
compensation of the Trustee shall be effective unless approved
in writing by the Trustee.
In the event Barbara K. Kramer dies, resigns, or is unable
to serve, then Robert M. Koeller is designated as Successor
Trustee of this trust. If Robert M. Koeller dies, resigns, or is
unable to serve, then I appoint Marlene M. Koeller as
Successor Trustee of this Trust.
Page 18 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 19 of 51

Albert-Fritz Deposition Exhibits, Deposition Exhibit D, Trust, Article II (d/e
67-9, at 20 of 46). Attorney Albert-Fritz discussed Article II with Barbara
Kramer. The first paragraph of Article II was a standard provision in the
revocable trusts that attorney Albert-Fritz prepared for her clients at the
time. Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 29. Barbara Kramer was worried about
someone attempting to take advantage of her if she became unable to
handle her affairs. Attorney Albert-Fritz told her that this paragraph
addressed that situation:
Q. Did you talk to her about that [Article II paragraph 1]?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. How come?
A. Because I guess she was worried about any kind of mental
capacity disability where she could be talked into something by
someone like a Fuller brush salesmen or Kirby vacuum
salesman that showed up at her door. She didn't want to be
able to make them beneficiaries of the trust or tear up her trust
or anything like that without the safety valve of Bob approving
any amendment or changes to the trust in writing. So this was
her worry in a declining mental state.
Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 28-29.
Attorney Fritz-Albert and Barbara Kramer also discussed the
remaining paragraph of Article II appointing Koeller as successor Trustee.
Barbara Kramer wanted Koeller as successor Trustee, or if he did not
Page 19 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 20 of 51

serve, she wanted Marlene Koeller as successor Trustee. Albert-Fritz
Deposition, at 17-17, 53.
Article V set forth the distribution of the Trust corpus:
ARTICLE V
After satisfaction of the Settlor’s legal debts, obligations,
federal and/or state inheritance taxes, personal income and
fiduciary income taxes, then the Successor Trustee shall
distribute the remaining balance held in the Trust as follows:
A. 50% to my brother, Robert M. Koeller;
B. 25% to my daughter, Rachel M. Kramer;
C. 25% to my daughter, Claire E. Kramer.
If either of my daughters fails to survive me, then the
share said daughter would have received shall go to my
brother, Robert M. Koeller.
In the event my brother, Robert M. Koeller, fails to survive
me then the residue of my estate shall be divided equally
between my daughter, Rachel K. Kramer, my daughter,
Claire E. Kramer, and my sister-in-law, Marlene M.
Koeller.
Albert-Fritz Deposition Exhibits, Deposition Exhibit D, Trust, Article V (67-9,
at 22 of 46). Attorney Albert-Fritz did not question Barbara Kramer’s
division of her estate between Koeller and the Daughters because Barbara
Kramer was clear about her wishes:
I could tell that it was her wish. I mean, she stated it in that
order. It wasn't 25 percent to my daughter, 25 percent to my
other daughter, and 50 percent to Bob, or 30/30/30. It wasn't
any such thing as that. It was Bob half, my girls half.
Page 20 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 21 of 51

Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 83.
Barbara Kramer also executed powers of attorney for healthcare and
for property on October 8, 2012. Attorney Albert-Fritz included powers of
attorney as part of an estate plan as part of her standard practice. Barbara
Kramer named Koeller as the holder of her powers of attorney and Claire
Kramer as the successor should Koeller be unable to serve. Albert-Fritz
Deposition, at 38. The power of attorney for property would only be become
effective if Barbara Kramer’s treating physician declared in writing that she
we disabled. Albert-Fritz Deposition Exhibits, Exhibit H, Statutory Short
Form Power of Attorney for Property (Power of Attorney for Property) ¶ 6
(d/e 67-9, at 42 of 46).
Albert-Fritz stated in her deposition that in her professional opinion,
Barbara Kramer executed the 2012 Will, the Trust, and the powers of
attorney as her free and voluntary act. Albert-Fritz had no reason to
believe that Barbara Kramer was under the undue influence of Koeller
when she executed these documents. Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 51.
Rachel Kramer believed that Barbara Kramer was of sound mind at the
time that she executed the 2012 Will and Trust. Rachel Kramer Deposition,
at 62, 184. Claire Kramer agreed that Barbara Kramer signed the 2012
Will of her own free will. Claire Kramer Deposition, at 68.
Page 21 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 22 of 51

Albert-Fritz discussed in her deposition how Barbara Kramer
explained her relationship with Koeller:
Because Barbara told me that -- how close she was to her
brother and that he had helped her through lots of toils in the
past and he was the person that she confided in and discussed
things with almost like how you would do with a husband, but
he was just a male in her life that she trusted and respected.
Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 30. Albert-Fritz further explained:
I think it was more than just brother. I think she relied on his
legal advice, his financial guidance. It just appeared to me that
they were closer than the ordinary brother and sister.
Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 52. Albert-Fritz did not get the impression that
Koeller managed Barbara Kramer’s finances:
I don't know that he managed them. I feel from my talks with
her that she managed them but with his guidance and his
counsel.
Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 53.
The file of attorney Albert-Fritz was produced in discovery and
included an unsigned draft will substantially similar to the 2012 Will.
Attorney Albert-Fritz testified that she had not seen the document before.
Albert-Fritz Deposition, at 63-64, 68. Counsel for the Daughters also
showed the document to Koeller at his deposition. Koeller did not
remember seeing the unsigned draft will before the deposition. Koeller
Deposition, at 35. Koeller said that he could have drafted the document.
Page 22 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 23 of 51

Koeller said that he did not know if he drafted the unsigned draft will.
Koeller Deposition, at 32. Koeller did not have a copy of the unsigned draft
will in his records. Koeller Deposition, at 34.
Barbara Kramer did not discuss the contents of 2012 Will and the
Trust with the Daughters. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 119-20; Claire
Kramer Deposition, at 31, 66, 70. Claire Kramer did not know of any
discussion between Koeller and Barbara Kramer regarding 2012 Will and
Trust. Claire Kramer Deposition, at 72. The first time Koeller knew that
Barbara Kramer left him half the corpus of the Trust was when he first read
the 2012 Will and the Trust after they had been executed. Koeller could
not remember when he first read the 2012 Will and the Trust. Koeller
Deposition, at 48.
On or about October 18, 2012, Barbara Kramer called Koeller for help
transferring her bank accounts into the Trust. Barbara Kramer had a
problem with her bank because the Trust had a federal tax ID number. The
bank representatives typically used the settlor’s Social Security Number on
a revocable living trust account. Koeller called attorney Albert- Fritz for
Barbara Kramer to discuss the matter on October 18 and 29, 2012. AlbertFritz did not take Koeller’s calls. Koeller Deposition Exhibits, Group Exhibit
7, Telephone Messages, (d/e 70, at 30 of 62); Albert-Fritz Deposition, at
Page 23 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 24 of 51

45-46. Albert-Fritz would not disclose the information about Barbara
Kramer’s estate plan to a third party, even a beneficiary under the estate
plan. Barbara Kramer came to Albert-Fritz’s office in early November 2012,
a few days after Koeller’s second call. At that time, Albert-Fritz called
Koeller in Barbara Kramer’s presence and with her permission. Albert-Fritz
Deposition, at 46-47. This conversation was the only time Attorney AlbertFritz and Koeller spoke to each other before this case was filed. AlbertFritz Deposition, at 83.
In September 2016, Barbara Kramer and Koeller discussed the
possibility of selling her home and moving into a condominium. Barbara
Kramer told Koeller her current mortgage interest rate and the remaining
balance on the mortgage debt. Koeller told Barbara Kramer that she had a
good interest rate on her current mortgage. He also estimated how much
she would receive from a sale of her home after commissions and paying
off the remaining balance on the mortgage. Koeller Deposition, at 104-05;
Koeller Deposition Exhibits, Group Exhibit 20, Email exchange between
Koeller and Decedent dated September 19-21, 2016 (d/e 71, at 34-35 of
80).
Also, in September 2016, Barbara Kramer and Koeller were both
considering hiring a new financial advisor, Riverpoint Capital Management
Page 24 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 25 of 51

for their accounts (Riverpoint). On September 27, 2016 Koeller advised
Barbara Kramer that she probably could not sell many of her holdings
without incurring taxable capital gains. Koeller Deposition Exhibits, Group
Exhibit 22, Email dated September 27, 2016 (d/e 71, at 51 of 80). On
October 10, 2017, Koeller opined that Barbara Kramer’s annuity account
held two well-performing stock and bond funds, and “[t]he rest is invested in
funds with very low returns.” Koeller suggested that Barbara Kramer talk to
her financial advisor about this. Koeller Deposition Exhibits, Group Exhibit
22, Email dated October 10, 2016 (d/e 71, at 52 of 80). On October 24,
2016, Koeller advised Barbara Kramer that the only problem with her
investment accounts was the performance of her annuity. He suggested
waiting until they both received a proposal from Riverpoint. Koeller
Deposition Exhibits, Group Exhibit 22, Email dated October 14, 2016 (d/e
71, at 64 of 80). Koeller and Barbara Kramer received the proposal by
Riverpoint in December 2016. By January 2017, Koeller and Barbara
Kramer moved all their accounts to Riverpoint for management. Koeller
Deposition Exhibits, Group Exhibit 22, Email dated January 26, 2017 (d/e
71, at 70 of 80).
When Barbara Kramer’s health began to deteriorate significantly, she
gave Koeller the original 2012 Will to keep in his safe. Barbara Kramer had
Page 25 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 26 of 51

given Koeller the original Trust a couple of years earlier. Koeller
Deposition, at 37. Koeller stated in his deposition that he did not discuss
the 2012 Will or the Trust with Barbara Kramer when she provided them to
him. He just put the documents in his safe and he did not read the 2012
Will or Trust when Barbara Kramer gave them to him. Koeller Deposition,
at 38-39, 41, 55.
On or about May 14-15, 2018, Barbara Kramer and Koeller discussed
Barbara Kramer’s expenses.5 Barbara Kramer was concerned that she
was taking too much money out of her annuity. She was worried about
whether she had enough money to pay for her care if she had to go into a
nursing home. Koeller knew Barbara Kramer’s financial situation because
she gave him access to her accounts. Koeller made a list of her expenses
based on the information Barbara Kramer provided. Koeller told Barbara
Kramer that the information was helpful in figuring out if she was taking too
much out of her annuity. See Koeller Deposition, at 96-98.
In May and June 2018, Koeller and Barbara Kramer also looked into
whether she could lower her homeowner, automobile, and health insurance
costs. Koeller suggested contacting an independent insurance agent to

5

The evidence in the record does not indicate whether Barbara Kramer gave Koeller the original 2012
Will before or after the May 14, 2018 exchange. Koeller, however, stated that Barbara Kramer was in
declining health as of May 14, 2018. Koeller Deposition, at 100-01.

Page 26 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 27 of 51

see if Barbara Kramer could save money on her insurance. Koeller agreed
to send Barbara Kramer’s insurance information to Koeller’s agent to see if
he could find lower cost insurance. In June 2018, Koeller received quotes
from his insurance agent for new insurance policies for Barbara Kramer.
Koeller noted that the quotes would reduce Barbara Kramer’s automobile
insurance by about $200 but would not provide much savings on her
homeowner’s policy. Koeller Deposition, at 97-103; Koeller Deposition
Exhibits, Group Exhibit 19, Emails between Koeller and Barbara Kramer
dated May 14, 2018 (d/e 71, at 30-33 of 80), and Group Exhibit 21, Emails
between Koeller and Barbara Kramer dated May 15, 2018 and June 15,
2028 and Insurance Quotes (d/e 71, at 36-48 of 80).
In November 2018, Barbara Kramer was hospitalized in Springfield,
Illinois. On November 5, 2018, Rachel Kramer and Koeller drove together
to see Barbara Kramer. Rachel Kramer drove from her home in Cincinnati
to Indianapolis, picked up Koeller, and the two of them drove together to
Springfield. Koeller Deposition, at 35-36; Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 23.
Koeller told Rachel Kramer that her mother Barbara Kramer had plenty of
money to pay for her own care. Koeller told her that Barbara Kramer
received a settlement in the Vioxx litigation, and he advised Barbara
Kramer on what to do with the Vioxx settlement money. Koeller told Rachel
Page 27 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 28 of 51

Kramer that he recommended to Barbara Kramer that she establish a trust.
Koeller told her that Barbara Kramer would call him to ask if she had
enough money to buy things like a car or a computer and for permission to
buy such items. Koeller told Rachel Kramer that Barbara Kramer had
established a revocable living trust. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 25, 68,
80, 90-91; see Claire Deposition, at 83-84. Koeller did not recall discussing
the contents of the Will or Trust, or Barbara Kramer’s finances with Rachel
Kramer during the car trip. Koeller testified that he likely had seen contents
of the 2012 Will before the car trip. Koeller Deposition, at 37, 41-46.
While at the hospital, Koeller and Claire Kramer met with Barbara
Kramer’s pulmonologist. The pulmonologist told them that Barbara Kramer
did not have long to live. The pulmonologist estimated that Barbara
Kramer would not live more than six months. Koeller Deposition, at 61.
Rachel Kramer contacted Barbara Kramer’s banker in Bunker Hill
while at the hospital. Rachel Kramer then got Koeller in contact with the
banker. Koeller told the banker that he was the successor trustee of the
Trust. The banker suggested that Koeller get Barbara Kramer to resign so
Koeller could sign checks for the Trust to pay Barbara Kramer’s bills.
Koeller Deposition, at 58-60, 68-69; Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 113-14,
184-87.
Page 28 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 29 of 51

On November 6, 2018, Rachel Kramer went to Barbara Kramer’s
home in Bunker Hill, Illinois, to prepare for her mother’s return to her home
upon discharge from the hospital. Koeller went back to Indianapolis. On
November 7, 2018, Barbara Kramer was discharged from the hospital and
returned to her home in Bunker Hill, Illinois, under hospice care. Rachel
Kramer stayed with Barbara Kramer. Shortly before or after Barbara
Kramer returned home from the hospital, she told Rachel Kramer where
copies of the 2012 Will and Trust were located in the home. On November
6 or 7, 2018, Rachel Kramer read the 2012 Will and Trust for the first time.
Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 21, 26-27, 41.
Upon Koeller’s return to his office in Indianapolis, he prepared a
resignation document for Barbara Kramer to resign as Trustee of the Trust.
Koeller Deposition, at 56.
On or about November 10, 2018, Koeller, Marlene Koeller, Kristin
Koeller Sneider, and Rachel Kramer’s partner Mary Lynn Barber drove
together to Barbara Kramer’s home.6 Rachel Kramer was still with Barbara
Kramer at Barbara Kramer’s home. On November 10, 2018, Barbara
Kramer executed the resignation document prepared by Koeller, and

6

Rachel Kramer later refers to Mary Lynn Barber as her wife. See Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 41
(partner) 197 (wife).

Page 29 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 30 of 51

Koeller became successor Trustee of the Trust. Koeller Deposition, at 5960. Barbara Kramer was lucid and talking on November 10, 2018. Rachel
Kramer Deposition, at 41-43, 55, 111-12; Claire Kramer Deposition, at 62,
80.
Rachel Kramer viewed Barbara Kramer resigning as Trustee as a
“red flag.” Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 111. She explained:
Well, I thought it was redundant. I didn't understand the
point. I just felt like what's the point of this unless he was
ensuring because my mother still was lucid that there could be
no change in her mind to what was going to go on.
Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 115. Rachel Kramer believed Koeller
exerted undue influence over Barbara Kramer to sign the resignation.
Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 116. Rachel Kramer cited no evidence for
this belief.
On November 11, 2018, Barbara Kramer died. Rachel Kramer
Deposition, at 113. Koeller and the Daughters took the two rings
mentioned in the 2012 Will off of Barbara Kramer’s’ fingers and gave them
to Kristin Koeller Sneider. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 33-34. Koeller
told Claire Kramer that she would be receiving a piano. Claire Kramer
Deposition, at 49.
After Barbara Kramer’s death, Koeller told Rachel Kramer to arrange
for her remains to be taken to Kravanya Funeral Home. Barbara Kramer’s
Page 30 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 31 of 51

remains were cremated and the Daughters planned the memorial service
for Barbara Kramer in consultation with Koeller. The Daughters decided to
hold the memorial service on December 8, 2018. Koeller did not provide
any input on the memorial service. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 16; Claire
Kramer Deposition, at 22.
Koeller told the Daughters to empty Barbara Kramer’s home so that it
could be sold. Claire Kramer Deposition, at 29. Claire Kramer came to
Barbara Kramer’s home about a week after her death. She met with
Rachel Kramer to clean out the house. She first saw copies of the 2012
Will and Trust at that time. Claire Kramer Deposition, at 30.
According to Rachel Kramer, Koeller told the Daughters that they
could have any tangible personal property in the home. He told them that
they could sell any of the remaining personal property, but he was entitled
to half of the proceeds of such sales. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 10810; see also Claire Kramer Deposition, at 30. Rachel Kramer saw the
claim that Koeller was entitled to half of the proceeds of the sale of
personal property as “a red flag.” She decided to talk to an attorney about
Barbara Kramer’s estate. Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 110. Rachel
Kramer spoke to an attorney about the estate on November 21, 2018.
Rachel Kramer Deposition, at 191.
Page 31 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 32 of 51

After the memorial service, Rachel Kramer and Koeller discussed the
disposition of the remains. They agreed that, in the spring, they would bury
the remains in Barry, Illinois, next to Barbara Kramer’s parents’ graves.
Rachel Kramer took the remains home with her after the memorial service
because representatives of the funeral home handed them to her. As of
the date of Rachel Kramer’s deposition, Rachel Kramer still had Barbara
Kramer’s remains at her home in Cincinnati, Ohio. Rachel Kramer
Deposition, at 13-14.
Rachel Kramer believed that Barbara Kramer would have given at
least 50 percent of her estate to Claire Kramer to help her be able to stop
working because of her physical problems. Barbara Kramer spoke to
Rachel Kramer often of her concern for her sister Claire Kramer. Rachel
Kramer Deposition, at 159.
ANALYSIS
Koeller moves for summary judgment on the Daughters’ claim of
undue influence and his counterclaim under the Illinois Disposition of
Remains Act 755 ILCS 65/1. At summary judgment, Koeller must present
evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). The Court
must consider the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the
Page 32 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 33 of 51

Daughters. Any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue for trial must
be resolved against Koeller.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

242, 255 (1986). Once Koeller has met his burden, the Daughters must
present evidence to show that issues of fact remain with respect to an
issue essential to their case, and on which they will bear the burden of
proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. at 322; Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In this
case, the Daughters have failed to present evidence to show that an issue
of fact exists on the undue influence claims, but the Daughters have
demonstrated that issues of fact exist with respect to the counterclaim
under the Illinois Disposition of Remains Act.
Undue Influence Claim
To prove undue influence in the execution of a will or trust, the
plaintiff must present evidence that the defendant used improper influence
to overwhelm the actual intent of the testator or settlor. The Illinois
Supreme Court explained:
[U]ndue influence which will invalidate a will is “any improper * *
* urgency of persuasion whereby the will of a person is overpowered and he is induced to do or forbear an act which he
would not do or would do if left to act freely.’ [Citation.]”
(Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill.2d
452, 460, 69 Ill.Dec. 960, 448 N.E.2d 872.) To constitute undue
influence, the influence “’must be of such a nature as to destroy
the testator’s freedom concerning the disposition of his estate
Page 33 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 34 of 51

and render his will that of another.’ [Citation.]” Franciscan
Sisters, 95 Ill.2d at 460, 69 Ill.Dec. 960, 448 N.E.2d 872; see
also Swenson v. Wintercorn (1968), 92 Ill.App.2d 88, 105, 234
N.E.2d 91.
In re Estate of Hoover, 155 Ill.2d 402, 615 N.E.2d 736, 740 (Ill. 1993).
Undue influence may be shown by evidence that is “wholly inferential and
circumstantial.”
[Evidence] of false or misleading representations concerning
the character of another may be so connected with the
execution of the will that the allegation that such
misrepresentations were made to the testator may present
triable fact questions on the issue of undue influence.
Id. The plaintiff must present evidence that the undue influence was
“operative and must have been felt at the time the will was executed, even
though it could have been exerted at any time.” In re Estate of Roeseler,
287 Ill. App. 3d 1003, 1018, 679 N.E.2d 393, 404 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1997).
The undue influence “must be specifically directed toward procuring the will
in favor of a particular person or persons.” Estate of Letsche, 79 Ill.App.3d
643, 646, 392 N.E.2d 612, 614 (Ill. App. 3d Dist. 1979).
The plaintiff may raise a presumption of undue influence if she
presents evidence,
(1) that a fiduciary relationship existed between the testator and
a person who substantially benefits under the will; (2) that the
primary beneficiaries were in a position to dominate and control
the dependent testator; (3) that the testator reposed trust and
confidence in such beneficiaries; and (4) that the beneficiaries
Page 34 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 35 of 51

were instrumental in or participated in the procurement or
preparation of the will.
Roeseler, 679 N.E.2d at 404. The existence of the fiduciary relationship
alone is insufficient to prove undue influence. Herbolsheimer v.
Herbolsheimer, 46 Ill.App.3d 563, 566, 361 N.E.2d 134, 136 (Ill.App. 3d
Dist. 1977).
In this case, the Daughters have evidence that the dispositive terms
of the Trust were inconsistent with Barbara Kramer’s statements to Rachel
Kramer. Barbara Kramer stated that she wanted to take care of the
Daughters, especially Claire Kramer due to Claire Kramer’s health
problems. When viewed favorably to the Daughters, the evidence of
Barbara Kramer’s statements to care for the Daughters could be
inconsistent with giving half her residuary corpus of the Trust to Koeller.
The Daughters also have evidence of a confidential relationship
between Barbara Kramer and Koeller. A confidential relationship “involves
confidence and trust on one side and dominance and influence on the
other.” Carey Elec. Contracting, Inc. v. First Nat. Bank of Elgin, 74
Ill.App.3d 233, 237-38, 392 N.E.2d 759, 763 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 1979). In this
case, Barbara Kramer trusted and confided in Koeller. She put his name
on her bank accounts and gave him access to her safety deposit box. She
gave him access to all her investment accounts and asked his advice about
Page 35 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 36 of 51

selling her home and buying a condominium. She asked him whether she
was taking too much money out of her annuity. He advised her on these
matters and also advised her about her investments. He received a fee
denominated as an attorney fee in the breakdown of Barbara Kramer’s
settlement distribution in the Vioxx litigation. When viewed favorably to the
Daughters, this evidence indicates he had an attorney-client relationship
with Barbara Kramer from 2004 to 2009. Taken together, the Daughters
have presented ample evidence, when viewed favorably to them, to show a
confidential relationship between the Decedent Barbara Kramer and
Koeller.
The Daughters, however, have not presented evidence that Koeller
did anything to overpower the individual will of Barbara Kramer to force her
to execute the 2012 Will and the Trust. The Daughters have presented no
evidence that Koeller attempted to persuade Barbara Kramer to leave him
half of her estate. Koeller recommended a revocable trust, but no evidence
shows that Koeller and Barbara Kramer discussed the disposition of
Barbara Kramer’s estate at that time. The Daughters have no evidence
that Koeller participated in the procurement of the 2012 Will or Trust. The
Daughters, thus, cannot raise a presumption of undue influence. Roeseler,
679 N.E.2d at 404. They have the burden to present evidence.
Page 36 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 37 of 51

The Daughters have failed to present evidence of undue influence at
the time of the execution of the 2012 Will and Trust. Barbara Kramer met
alone with attorney Albert-Fritz on three separate occasions. Koeller was
not involved in those meetings. Koeller and Albert-Fritz did not know each
other. Albert-Fritz prepared the 2012 Will and Trust in accordance with
Barbara Kramer’s instructions. Albert-Fritz believed Barbara Kramer
signed the documents of her own free will. Rachel Kramer conceded that
Barbara Kramer was of sound mind when she executed the documents,
and Claire Kramer agreed that Barbara Kramer executed the documents of
her own free will. There is no evidence that Koeller overpowered Barbara
Kramer’s will to get her to execute the 2012 Will and Trust.
The Daughters point to the fact that Koeller prepared a Codicil to
Barbara Kramer’s 2002 Will. That Codicil was superseded by the 2012 Will
and had no effect on the disposition of Barbara Kramer’s estate. The Draft
Codicil did not contain any instructions regarding the residuary of Barbara
Kramer’s estate. The draft Codicil, therefore, does not tend to show any
information about Barbara Kramer’s desires regarding the distribution of the
residuary of her estate or any efforts by Koeller to affect Barbara Kramer’s
desires for her residuary estate at the time that she executed the 2012 Will
and Trust.
Page 37 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 38 of 51

The Daughters point to the fact that the terms of the Draft Codicil
were consistent with the bequests of personal property in the 2012 Will.
The Draft Codicil and the 2012 Will both showed that Barbara Kramer left
her piano to Claire Kramer, two rings to Koeller’s daughter Kristin Koeller
Sneider, and her music library first to her Daughters and the rest to an
unnamed recipient in the Draft Codicil and McKendree College in the 2012
Will. Koeller testified that Barbara Kramer instructed him to prepare these
bequests in the Draft Codicil and he followed her instructions. Attorney
Albert-Fritz testified that Barbara Kramer told her to include these bequests
in the 2012 Will and she followed her instructions. The Daughters present
no evidence to the contrary. The Daughters cite Claire Kramer’s testimony
that she told Barbara Kramer that she was not interested in the rings but
said Rachel Kramer might be interested. Claire Kramer’s comment to
Barbara Kramer is not evidence of Barbara Kramer’s intent. The
Daughters present no evidence that Barbara Kramer had any intent to
leave the rings to Rachel Kramer rather than her niece Kristin Koeller
Sneider.
The Daughters argue that Barbara Kramer did not read the 2012 Will
before she signed it because she would not have allowed a reference to a
spouse in Article VII. This observation may relate to the execution of the
Page 38 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 39 of 51

2012 Will, but the Daughters do not challenge the efficacy of the execution
of the 2012 Will. They bring only a claim of undue influence. Whether
Barbara Kramer read the 2012 Will does not tend to prove undue influence
by Koeller. He was not involved in the execution of the 2012 Will.
Rachel Kramer testified that she believes Marlene Kramer exerted
undue influence over Barbara Kramer to convince her to leave the two
rings to her niece. Rachel Kramer, however, presents no evidence. Her
belief is speculation, not evidence.
Rachel Kramer also found it suspicious that a witness to the 2012
Will, Jerry Coleman, lived in Newburgh, Indiana.

See Rachel Kramer

Deposition, at 182-84. Coleman was another client of attorney Albert-Fritz
whom Albert-Fritz asked to serve as a witness. Albert-Fritz Deposition, at
76-82. Koeller, Coleman, and millions of other people lived in Indiana.
Koeller lived 170 miles away from Newburgh in Indianapolis, Indiana.7
Rachel Kramer’s suspicions about the fact that Koeller and Coleman both
lived in Indiana is not evidence of undue influence.
The Daughters make much of the fact that attorney Albert-Fritz had in
her files an unsigned draft will that was very similar to the 2012 Will. The

7

The Court takes judicial notice that Newburgh, Indiana, is next to Evansville, Indiana, at the southern tip
of Indiana and approximately 170 in driving distance from Indianapolis.

Page 39 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 40 of 51

Daughters, however, have presented no evidence that Koeller had a
connection to this document. The document was in Attorney Albert-Fritz’s
file. Attorney Albert-Fritz did not receive any documents from Koeller and
had no communications with Koeller until after Barbara Kramer signed the
2012 Will and Trust. Attorneys Albert-Fritz and Koeller had no memory of
the document. Koeller conceded that he could have written the document,
but he did not know. Koeller’s lack of knowledge is not evidence. The
Daughters have no evidence to tie Koeller to this document. This
document, therefore, lacks foundation and is not competent evidence.
As noted above, the evidence shows that Rachel Kramer and Claire
Kramer believed Barbara Kramer was of sound mind when she executed
the 2012 Will and Trust. Attorney Albert-Fritz said that Koeller provided no
documents to her. There is no evidence that the draft will was reviewed by
Attorney Albert-Fritz or Barbara Kramer when the 2012 Will and Trust was
prepared. The Trust, not the Will, directed the distribution of the residue of
the estate 50% to Koeller and 25% to each of the Daughters. The Will only
disposed of personal property, specifically, a piano, the two rings, Kramer’s
music library, household goods and other tangible personal property. All of
the personal property, other than the two rings, went to the Daughters or
McKendree College. There is no evidence that the Will in Attorney AlbertPage 40 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 41 of 51

Fritz’s file shows undue influence by Koeller on the distribution of the
residuary estate of Barbara Kramer.
Rachel Kramer opined in her deposition that Koeller was “a bit of a
racist homophobe.” She believed Koeller and Marlene Koeller tried to turn
Barbara Kramer against her, but ultimately failed. Again, the Daughters’
beliefs and surmises are not evidence. Rachel Kramer presents no
evidence that Koeller or Marlene Koeller ever said anything negative about
her to Barbara Kramer. Rachel Kramer said that sometimes the Koellers
would not let her stay in their home in Indianapolis to visit with Barbara
Kramer when Barbara Kramer was staying there. Rachel Kramer presents
no evidence that the Koellers did not let her come because of her sexual
orientation or said anything to Barbara Kramer about Rachel Kramer’s
sexual orientation. Rachel Kramer’s testimony also means that sometimes
they let Rachel Kramer stay in their home. Rachel Kramer’s beliefs,
standing alone, are not evidence.
Rachel Kramer stated that she was not invited to a 50th wedding
anniversary party or to a birthday party. Rachel Kramer does not identify
the dates of these parties, the hosts of these parties, the location of these
parties, or the persons honored at these parties. Rachel Kramer, therefore,
has presented no evidence that the lack of an invitation to these events
Page 41 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 42 of 51

shows any hostility toward her by the Koellers or any effort to turn Barbara
Kramer against her.
Rachel Kramer also stated that the Koellers did not visit with her
when they came to Cincinnati. The Koellers’ decision not to visit Rachel
Kramer does not tend to show anything about their interactions with
Barbara Kramer or any effort to try to turn her against Rachel Kramer.
The Daughters make much of Article II of the Trust. The first
paragraph of Article II stated that the Settlor could revoke or amend the
Trust by delivering a signed instrument to that effect to the Trustee, but no
amendment could change the powers, duties, or compensation of the
Trustee without the Trustee’s written approval. This was a standard
paragraph that attorney Albert-Fritz included in revocable living trusts that
she drafted. The Daughters have presented no evidence that Koeller
overpowered Barbara Kramer’s will to have this paragraph included in the
Trust.
The Daughters argue that Article II gave Koeller power over the Trust
and prevented Barbara Kramer from amending the Trust. This is simply
incorrect. Barbara Kramer was the Settlor and Trustee and so could
approve any change to the Trust. She could revoke or amend the Trust in
any manner at any time. She did not need Koeller’s approval.
Page 42 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 43 of 51

The Daughters note that the second paragraph of the Trust named
Koeller as successor Trustee. They argue that this provision gave him
power over the Trust if he could get Barbara Kramer to resign as Trustee.
This is also incorrect. If Barbara Kramer resigned, she could always
revoke the Trust.8
Furthermore, the Daughters presented no evidence that Koeller ever
tried to persuade Barbara Kramer to resign as Trustee. If Koeller
overpowered Barbara Kramer’s will to put Article II into the Trust so he
could get her to resign and take control of the Trust, surely he would have
tried to get her to resign. Barbara Kramer, however, remained Trustee for
over six years, from October 8, 2012 until November 10, 2018. The
Daughters presented no evidence that Kramer did anything to try to take
control of the Trust for those six years.
Rachel Kramer saw the November 10, 2018 resignation as a “red
flag” of some sinister plan by Koeller. Rachel Kramer’s feelings and
speculations are not evidence of undue influence. The evidence shows
that by November 5, 2018, Barbara Kramer was gravely ill and in the
hospital. Her pulmonologist told both Koeller and Claire Kramer that

8

Attorney Albert-Fritz testified that the first sentence would have limited Barbara Kramer’s ability to
revoke the Trust. Albert-Fritz’s erroneous interpretation does not change the clear language of the Trust.

Page 43 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 44 of 51

Barbara Kramer was terminally ill and would live no more than six months,
and her banker asked Koeller to get Barbara Kramer to resign so that
someone could sign the checks and pay the bills for Barbara Kramer.9
Only then did Koeller prepare a Trustee resignation. Preparing a Trustee
resignation under these circumstances does not show a desire to
overwhelm Barbara Kramer’s free will, and certainly does not show any
effort to overwhelm Barbara Kramer’s free will more than six years earlier
when she signed the 2012 Will and Trust.
The Daughters ask the Court to question Koeller’s credibility. Both
sides correctly note that the Court at summary judgment does not weigh
the evidence. The Court draws all reasonable inferences from the
evidence in favor of the Daughters as the non-moving parties, but the Court
does not weigh the evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Here, the
evidence is Koeller’s testimony that the pulmonologist said Barbara Kramer
was terminally ill, and Kramer’s banker asked him to get Barbara Kramer to
resign so somebody could sign the checks and pay the bills. The
Daughters present no contradictory evidence. Therefore, the
uncontradicted evidence shows that Koeller asked Barbara Kramer to

9

Koeller had the power of attorney for Barbara Kramer, but the power would only be effective if Barbara
Kramer’s doctor declared in writing that she was disabled. Power of Attorney for Property ¶ 6.

Page 44 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 45 of 51

resign at the behest of the banker after he knew that his sister was
terminally ill. The banker asked for Barbara Kramer’s resignation so a
successor Trustee would have authority to write checks and pay Barbara
Kramer’s bills during her illness. The resignation does not show undue
influence.
The Daughters cited several cases in which Illinois courts found
issues of fact regarding whether the defendant exerted undue influence.
These cases cited by the Daughters, unlike this case, contain evidence of
undue influence concerning the preparation and execution of the will. In In
re Estate of Jessman, the defendant selected the attorney to draft the will,
took the decedent to the attorney’s office, and was present when the
attorney met with the decedent to prepare the will. Jessman, 197 Ill.App.3d
414, 416, 554 N.E.2d 718, 719 (Ill. App. 5th Dist., 1990). Here, Koeller did
not know attorney Albert-Fritz who Barbara Kramer selected to prepare the
2012 Will and Trust, and Barbara Kramer went alone three times to see
attorney Albert-Fritz to prepare and execute the 2012 Will and Trust.
In Hoover, the decedent disinherited his son Robert and left the
inheritance his son would have received to his son’s ex-wife Nancy and
their three daughters. The son presented evidence at summary judgment
that Nancy had written letters to the decedent falsely representing that
Page 45 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 46 of 51

Robert abandoned his daughters after the divorce, left Nancy and the
daughters destitute after the divorce, destroyed Robert’s relationship with
their daughters, and refused to provide for his daughters’ education.
Hoover, 155 Ill.2d 402, 412-13, 615 N.E.2d 736, 740-41. Here, the
Daughters have presented no evidence that Koeller made any
misrepresentations or disparaging comments to Barbara Kramer regarding
the Daughters. Rachel stated her belief that Koeller disapproved of her
same sex relationship, but she presented no evidence that Koeller made
any disparaging comments to Barbara Kramer about her.
In Roeseler, the decedent, a widower, was in his 90s when he
changed his will to disinherit his stepdaughter and leave his estate to the
decedent’s neighbors. The stepdaughter presented evidence that the
decedent was senile and lacked testamentary capacity. The son of one of
these neighbors (Son-Attorney) was the attorney who wrote the first will
that left the estate to his mother and the other neighbor. A year later, the
Son-Attorney selected another attorney to prepare a second will for the
decedent. This second will left the decedent’s estate to the same
neighbors but, in addition, provided that the Son-Attorney would receive his
mother’s share of the estate if his mother predeceased the decedent. The
lawyer who wrote the second will did not know that the decedent had been
Page 46 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 47 of 51

married or had a stepdaughter. The lawyer who wrote the second will also
had a law partner who was a high school friend and college fraternity
brother of the Son-Attorney. Roeseler, 679 N.E.2d at 396-98, 405. Here,
Koeller was not a neighbor, but the only living sibling of Barbara Kramer;
Koeller did not know Attorney Albert-Fritz; and Koeller was not involved in
the preparation or execution of the 2012 Will and Trust.
The Daughters also cite Letsche v. Gillespie, 73 Ill.App.3d 643, 392
N.E.2d 612 (Ill. App. 3d Dist. 1979). In Letsche, the Court entered directed
verdict at the close of petitioner’s evidence at trial, finding that the petitioner
failed to present evidence of undue influence. The Daughters must meet
the same standard to overcome the motion for summary judgment.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52. The decedent in Letsche was declared
incompetent and the respondent was appointed as custodian of the
decedent in 1961 or 1962. The decedent’s will at the time left her estate in
equal shares to the petitioner and respondent. In 1964, the decedent
moved into a home for the elderly. Twelve years later, in 1976, the
attorney representing the respondent conservator directed the decedent to
write out what she wanted in her will. The decedent wrote a letter. The
decedent gave the letter to the respondent, and the respondent read the
letter to the attorney over the telephone. The letter said the decedent
Page 47 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 48 of 51

wanted to give one-third of her estate to petitioner and two-thirds to
respondent. The respondent testified that she was not involved in the
writing of the letter. The attorney drafted the will accordingly. The
respondent was at the home for the elderly when the decedent executed
the will, but she was not in the room. The respondent met with the
decedent shortly after she executed the will. The decedent gave the will to
the respondent for safe keeping. Letsche, 392 N.E.2d at 613. The Court
entered directed verdict because this evidence was not sufficient to show
that the defendant participated in the procuring of the will. Id., at 614.
The Court in Jessman, 554 N.E.2d 718 at 420, noted that to create a
presumption of undue influence the plaintiff must show the will was
prepared or procured and executed in circumstances in which the
questioned beneficiary was instrumental or participated. No such evidence
is presented in this case.
Here, Koeller was far less involved. Koeller recommended to
Barbara Kramer to establish a revocable living trust, but he had no
connection with the lawyer that prepared the trust, did not know Barbara
Kramer’s plan for distributing her estate, and was not involved in the
preparation of the 2012 Will and the Trust. The facts supporting undue
influence in In re Estate of Jessman, Hoover, and Roeseler cases are
Page 48 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 49 of 51

absent in this case. Likewise, the evidence of undue influence in Letsche
was much stronger than the evidence in this case, but was deemed not to
support the plaintiff’s claim of undue influence. Based on the lack of
evidence of undue influence in the procurement and execution of the Will in
this case, the cases cited above support the conclusion Koeller is entitled
to summary judgment in this case.
Counterclaim I
Koeller seeks summary judgment on his claim that Rachel Kramer
violated the Illinois Disposition of Remains Act (Act), 755 ILCS 65/1 et seq.,
when she took Barbara Kramer’s remains to her home in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The Act sets the order of priority to identify the person entitled to determine
the disposition on remains. The Act authorizes a cause of action when a
dispute exists over the right to control the disposition of remains:
§ 50. Disputes. Any dispute among any of the persons listed in
Section 5 concerning their right to control the disposition,
including cremation, of a decedent's remains shall be resolved
by a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days of the
dispute being filed with the court. A cemetery organization or
funeral establishment shall not be liable for refusing to accept
the decedent's remains, or to inter or otherwise dispose of the
decedent's remains, until it receives a court order or other
suitable confirmation that the dispute has been resolved or
settled.
755 ILCS 65/50.

Page 49 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 50 of 51

The Daughters have presented evidence showing that an issue of
fact exists regarding whether a dispute exists regarding Koeller’s right to
control the disposition of Barbara Kramer’s remains. Koeller as the
Personal Representative of the estate in this case had priority to control the
disposition of Barbara Kramer’s remains. 755 ILCS 65/5. Barbara Kramer
died in November 2018, and the memorial service was in December 2018.
Rachel Kramer testified that she consulted with Koeller after the memorial
service about the disposition of the remains. According to Rachel Kramer,
they agreed that Decedent’s remains would be buried in the spring when
the weather was warmer in Barry, Illinois, next to her parents’ graves. For
purposes of summary judgment, the Court must credit this testimony.
Rachel Kramer did not dispute Koeller’s authority; rather, she discussed the
matter with Koeller and received his consent to the plan for the disposition
of the remains. Rachel Kramer took the remains to her home after the
memorial service in December until they could be buried in the spring. This
case has, evidently, delayed the burial; still, the evidence does not show a
dispute about his authority to decide on the disposition of the remains.
Koeller, therefore, is not entitled to summary judgment under the Act.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent Robert M. Koeller’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 67) is ALLOWED in part and DENIED
Page 50 of 51

3:19-cv-03247-TSH # 84

Page 51 of 51

in part. The Court enters summary judgment in favor of Respondent and
against Petitioners on Petitioner’s claims. The Court denies summary
judgment on Respondent’s Counterclaim I. The matter will proceed to trial
as scheduled on Respondent’s counterclaims.
ENTER: September 9, 2021
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 51 of 51