- 17 - set forth in the purported trust instrument are associated with the day-to-day management affairs of the business. Thus, the director’s responsibilities appear to be nothing more than those of a business manager. Indeed, the first time Mr. Adorno claimed to be trustee for Adorno Business was in his response dated October 17, 2002, to the Court’s order for production of documents evidencing Mr. Adorno’s capacity as the purported “trustee” of Adorno Business. With the exception of the response, Mr. Adorno continually referred to himself as director and signed all relevant documents as director of Adorno Business. Without clear evidence in the purported trust instrument, we are unpersuaded that the term “director” is synonymous with the term “trustee” to accord Mr. Adorno the status of trustee. Accordingly, we conclude that Mr. Adorno is not the duly appointed trustee of Adorno Business pursuant to Illinois law. In the absence of any persuasive basis for concluding that Mr. Adorno was duly appointed as trustee for Adorno Business, we shall dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction consistent with respondent’s motion. All of the arguments and contentions that have not beenPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011