ILCS » Chapter 755 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

755 ILCS 5/23-2 (2026)

Removal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(755 ILCS 5/23-2) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 23-2)
    Sec. 23-2. Removal.
    (a) On petition of any interested person or on the court's own motion, the court may remove a representative if:
        (1) the representative is acting under letters
    
secured by false pretenses;
        (2) the representative is adjudged a person subject
    
to involuntary admission under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code or is adjudged a person with a disability;
        (3) the representative is convicted of a felony;
        (4) the representative wastes or mismanages the
    
estate;
        (5) the representative conducts himself or herself in
    
such a manner as to endanger any co-representative or the surety on the representative's bond;
        (6) the representative fails to give sufficient bond
    
or security, counter security or a new bond, after being ordered by the court to do so;
        (7) the representative fails to file an inventory or
    
accounting after being ordered by the court to do so;
        (8) the representative conceals himself or herself so
    
that process cannot be served upon the representative or notice cannot be given to the representative;
        (9) the representative becomes incapable of or
    
unsuitable for the discharge of the representative's duties; or
        (10) there is other good cause.
    (b) If the representative becomes a nonresident of the United States, the court may remove the representative as such representative.
(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: In Re Est. of Kes, 807 N.E.2d 681 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Est. of Kes, 807 N.E.2d 681 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “Benito Satisfied the Burden Placed on a Third Party Seeking To Retain Custody Amy argues that the trial, court abused its discretion by failing, to terminate the children's guardianship. Specifically, Amy claims that by allowing the children to move to Texas, Benito, violated…”
In re S.F., 2020 IL App (2d) 190248 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “” 755 ILCS 5/23-2(a)(9), (10) (West 2016). See Friends for Murray Center Inc.”
Cushing v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 965 N.E.2d 1215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “We further note that the order did not refer to section 23-2 of the Probate Act of 1975 (755 ILCS 5/23-2 (West 2002)), which governs removal of an administrator.”
Cushing v. Greyhound Lines, 2012 IL App (1st) 100768 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “We further note that the order did not refer to section 23-2 of the Probate Act of 1975 (755 ILCS 5/23-2 (West 2002)), which governs removal of an administrator.”
In Re Est. of Austwick, 656 N.E.2d 773 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “23-2(a)(10) (now 755 ILCS 5/23-2(a)(10) (West 1992)).) Mrs.”
In Re Est. of Webb, 675 N.E.2d 192 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “Discussion Petitioner argues on appeal that the trial court erred in placing the burden of proof on her and in not placing the burden of proof on respondent to overturn the presumption that the natural parent has superior rights over third parties to her children.”
Friends for Murray Ctr. Inc. v. The Dep't of Human Servs., 2014 IL App (5th) 130481 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “¶ 18 An “interested person” is defined under the Act in pertinent part as follows: “§ 1-2.11. ‘Interested person’ in relation to any particular action, power or proceeding under this Act means one who has or represents a financial interest, property right or fiduciary status at…”
Ralph v. Pryor (In Re Est. of Pryor), 2017 IL App (3d) 170023 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “755 ILCS 5/23-2(a) (West 2014). The petitioner's argument during the hearing on the respondents' motion to dismiss, and again during the hearing on the petitioner's motion to reconsider, centered around those circumstances contemplated by subsections 9 and 10 of section 23-2 of…”
In re Est. of Tait, 2017 IL App (3d) 150834 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “755 ILCS 5/23-2, 23-3 (West 2014). ¶ 19 Although strict compliance with statutes is normally necessary, the requirements of section 23-3 are met when the trial court’s procedures were “substantially sufficient to insure compliance with the intent and purpose of the Probate Act.”
In re Est. of Westphal, 2021 IL App (2d) 190324-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “Pursuant to section 23-2 of the Act (755 ILCS 5/23-2 (West 2018)), an interested party may petition to remove a representative for a variety of reasons, including that the representative wasted or mismanaged the estate.”
In re Est. of Tait, 2017 IL App (3d) 150834 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “755 ILCS 5/23-2, 23-3 (West 2014). ¶ 19 Although strict compliance with statutes is normally necessary, the requirements of section 23-3 are met when the trial court’s procedures were “substantially sufficient to insure compliance with the intent and purpose of the Probate Act.”
In re Est. of Schroeder, 2022 IL App (5th) 210307-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “2 ¶7 On April 11, 2019, the trial court entered an order granting the bank’s petition for removal of executor and for citation to show cause, which removed Amy Curry as the executor of the decedent’s estate for cause pursuant to section 23-2 of the Probate Act of 1975 (755 ILCS…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— 755 ILCS 5/23-2(a) — 1 case
Ralph v. Pryor (In Re Est. of Pryor), 2017 IL App (3d) 170023 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “755 ILCS 5/23-2(a) (West 2014). The petitioner's argument during the hearing on the respondents' motion to dismiss, and again during the hearing on the petitioner's motion to reconsider, centered around those circumstances contemplated by subsections 9 and 10 of section 23-2 of…”
— 755 ILCS 5/23-2(a)(10) — 3 cases
In Re Est. of Kes, 807 N.E.2d 681 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “Benito Satisfied the Burden Placed on a Third Party Seeking To Retain Custody Amy argues that the trial, court abused its discretion by failing, to terminate the children's guardianship. Specifically, Amy claims that by allowing the children to move to Texas, Benito, violated…”
In Re Est. of Austwick, 656 N.E.2d 773 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “23-2(a)(10) (now 755 ILCS 5/23-2(a)(10) (West 1992)).) Mrs.”
In Re Est. of Webb, 675 N.E.2d 192 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “Discussion Petitioner argues on appeal that the trial court erred in placing the burden of proof on her and in not placing the burden of proof on respondent to overturn the presumption that the natural parent has superior rights over third parties to her children.”
— 755 ILCS 5/23-2(a)(4) — 1 case
Fuller v. Bowers, 2023 IL App (1st) 221808-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
— 755 ILCS 5/23-2(a)(9) — 3 cases
In re S.F., 2020 IL App (2d) 190248 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “” 755 ILCS 5/23-2(a)(9), (10) (West 2016). See Friends for Murray Center Inc.”
Friends for Murray Ctr. Inc. v. The Dep't of Human Servs., 2014 IL App (5th) 130481 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “¶ 18 An “interested person” is defined under the Act in pertinent part as follows: “§ 1-2.11. ‘Interested person’ in relation to any particular action, power or proceeding under this Act means one who has or represents a financial interest, property right or fiduciary status at…”
Ralph v. Pryor (In Re Est. of Pryor), 2017 IL App (3d) 170023 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “755 ILCS 5/23-2(a) (West 2014). The petitioner's argument during the hearing on the respondents' motion to dismiss, and again during the hearing on the petitioner's motion to reconsider, centered around those circumstances contemplated by subsections 9 and 10 of section 23-2 of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.