In re Estate of Borgens

── In re Estate of Borgens ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (4th) 251112-U NOTICE This Order was filed under FILED April 24, 2026 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-25-1112 not precedent except in the Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT In re ESTATE OF KATHLEEN E. BORGENS, a ) Appeal from the Disabled Person ) Circuit Court of ) Scott County (John C. Borgens, ) No. 24GR5 Petitioner-Appellant, ) v. ) Honorable Susan L. Kinser, ) Zachary A. Schmidt, Respondent-Appellee). ) Judge Presiding. JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Knecht and Vancil concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ¶2 Petitioner, John C. Borgens, appeals from the dismissal of his “Petition for Review of Plenary Guardian’s Conduct” in the guardianship proceedings concerning his former spouse, Kathleen E. Borgens. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 These guardianship proceedings commenced on May 28, 2024, when respondent, Susan L. Kinser, petitioned for the appointment of a guardian for her daughter, Kathleen, due to temporary medical incapacitation. On June 20, 2024, the trial court appointed Kinser as Kathleen’s temporary guardian, and it subsequently appointed her as Kathleen’s plenary guardian on December 17, 2024. On June 16, 2025, Borgens, Kathleen’s ex-husband, filed a “Petition for Review of Plenary Guardian’s Conduct,” arguing that there was an issue with the sale of Kathleen’s house, which he alleged was marital property. Kathleen’s guardian ad litem (GAL), Robert V. Bonjean III, moved to dismiss the petition, as Borgens was not a party to the guardianship proceedings and thus lacked standing to file pleadings in the guardianship case. The GAL contended that Borgens was a party in Scott County case No. 22-DC-8, the dissolution of marriage case between him and Kathleen, which was still pending, and that the proper venue for him to obtain information related to Kathleen’s assets was through the divorce proceeding, not the guardianship case. ¶5 At a hearing on the motion to dismiss Borgens’s petition on October 14, 2025, the GAL explained, “[T]he basis of my Motion to Dismiss is that since he lacks standing, you know, if he filed a Petition to Intervene and there was not the divorce case pending, I would probably not object to his Petition to Intervene and indicate that he is entitled to, um, information related to the sale of the property, but saying that, I don’t want to see litigation that could easily occur and should be occurring in the divorce case be brought into the guardianship case.” The trial court ruled, “[P]art of *** being a guardian of an individual of this nature is also to *** protect their privacy so, if you