The recent decision in In re Estate of Bennett, 2026 IL App (3d) 250091, offers important guidance for probate practitioners and those following high-profile estate litigation in Illinois. The case centers on a dispute between the estates of two well-known rappers, Carlton Weekly (FBG Duck) and Dayvon Bennett (King Von), and addresses complex issues of probate jurisdiction, claim timeliness, and the treatment of estate assets held in LLCs.
Background of the Dispute
Carlton Weekly was killed in Chicago in August 2020, and Dayvon Bennett was killed in Atlanta a few months later. After Bennett’s death, his estate was opened in Will County, Illinois. In 2024, the Weekly Estate filed a lawsuit in Cook County against the Bennett Estate, alleging Bennett’s involvement in a murder-for-hire conspiracy related to Weekly’s death. The Bennett Estate responded by seeking to bar these claims as untimely under Illinois’ Probate Act, arguing that the claims were filed well after the statutory deadline[1].
Jurisdictional Challenge and the Domicile Question
A central issue was whether Illinois courts had jurisdiction over Bennett’s estate. The Weekly Estate argued that Bennett was a Georgia resident at the time of his death, not an Illinois resident, and that the Will County probate court therefore lacked jurisdiction. The appellate court clarified that while Illinois probate courts can exercise jurisdiction over estates of decedents domiciled in Illinois or owning property in Illinois, the question of domicile is a factual one that requires an evidentiary hearing when disputed[2].
The appellate court found that the probate judge erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve conflicting evidence about Bennett’s domicile. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for a hearing to determine Bennett’s true domicile at the time of his death[3].
Timeliness of Claims and Equitable Tolling
The court also addressed whether the statutory time bar for claims against an estate could be equitably tolled. The appellate court reaffirmed that Illinois law does not allow for equitable tolling of the two-year claims period under the Probate Act, even in cases involving allegations of fraud or other equitable considerations. However, this time bar only applies to assets over which Illinois courts have jurisdiction[4].
LLC Assets and Estate Administration
Another issue was whether claims against an LLC formed by the estate could be barred as untimely. The appellate court noted that the LLC, created to hold Bennett’s intellectual property and royalties, is a separate legal entity. The record was insufficiently developed to determine whether the Probate Act’s time bar should apply to claims against the LLC, so the court remanded for further proceedings on this issue as well[5].
Key Takeaways for Practitioners
- Domicile is a fact question: When a decedent’s domicile is disputed, Illinois courts must hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue before applying the Probate Act’s claim bar.
- Strict claims period: The two-year time bar for claims against an estate is strictly enforced and not subject to equitable tolling, but only applies to assets within the court’s jurisdiction.
- LLC assets require separate analysis: Assets held in an LLC may not automatically be subject to the same claim bar as the estate itself, especially if the LLC is a distinct legal entity.
This case underscores the importance of careful factual development in probate disputes, especially when jurisdiction and the nature of estate assets are contested.
