Cubs Legend Ryne Sandberg’s Family Heads to Court Over Mishandling of Trust

Cubs Hall of Famer Ryne Sandberg, affectionately known as “Ryno,” is forever remembered for his legendary “Sandberg Game” on June 23, 1984, when he delivered two clutch home runs in the ninth and tenth innings to ignite a dramatic comeback victory. Sadly, his death last July has since triggered a bitter family dispute, with his children now suing his widow, Margaret Sandberg, over alleged violations of his trust.

Background:

Prior to his death, Ryne Sandberg’s trust named his widow, Margaret Sandberg, and his children, Justin and Lindsey Sandberg, as equal co-trustees over his name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. The children’s lawsuit alleges that after his death, Margaret ignored the siblings and refused to cooperate in establishing a separate bank account for the trust. The suit challenges a handwritten note that Ryne Sandberg allegedly wrote less than two weeks before his death. The note is purported to amend the trust and add Margaret’s stepson and the family’s financial adviser as trustees. Ryne Sandberg allegedly wrote in the signed note “N.I.L” at the top and “majority rules” at the bottom, with a list of the five names on the new committee. The children argue that the note is not legally enforceable because it was not properly delivered to the siblings prior to their father’s death as required by the trust. The children also claim their father lacked the capacity to make such changes due to his deteriorating medical condition and because he was often heavily sedated during that time. The siblings are asking the court to declare the note invalid or unenforceable and compel their stepmother to comply with the trust.

A Closer Look into the Children’s Allegations

Let’s break down what is happening in this case and its implications. The children allege that:

1. the note purporting to amend the trust is invalid because it was not delivered to the siblings as required by the trust, and
2. Ryne Sandberg lacked the testamentary capacity to make such an amendment due to his deteriorating medical condition.

Understanding the Legal Standards for Trust Amendments and Their Safeguards

For clients and families, these legal requirements are not just technicalities; they are fundamental protections for the decedent. Let’s take a deeper look into what this means:

Amendment of a Trust:

In Illinois, the law is clear: if a trust specifies a particular method for amending the trust, that method must be followed. See 760 ILCS 3/602.

For example, if the trust requires that any amendment be in writing, signed by the settlor, and delivered to certain parties during the settlor’s lifetime, then all of these requirements must be met for the amendment to be valid. See 760 ILCS 3/602; McCarthy v. Taylor, 2014 IL App (1st) 132239, ¶65; Estate of Mendelson v. Mendelson, 2015 IL App (2d) 150084, ¶24.

The rationale behind this strict approach is to protect the intentions of the person who created the trust (the settlor) and to prevent confusion, disputes, and potential manipulation after the settlor’s death.

What’s the outcome: If the court finds the amendment to be invalid, the original terms of the trust will remain in effect. See 760 ILCS 3/602.



Lack of Testamentary Capacity:

In addition to procedural requirements, Illinois law requires that the settlor has sufficient mental capacity at the time of amending a trust. 760 ILCS 3/406. If there is evidence that the settlor lacked the ability to understand what they were doing at the time of the amendment, the amendment may be challenged on grounds that the settlor lacked testamentary capacity. See DeHart v. DeHart, 2013 IL 114137, ¶20.

Testamentary capacity requires that the testator have:

1. sufficient mental ability to know and remember the natural objections of his bounty,
2. to comprehend the kind and character of property held, and
3. to make a disposition thereof according to some plan formed in the testator’s mind. Beyers v. Billingsley, 54 Ill. App. 3d 427, 432 (1977).

The burden is on the party asserting the lack of testamentary capacity, and the evidence must relate to a reasonable time before, during, or after execution of the trust or amendment.

What’s the outcome: If a court finds that the settlor lacked testamentary capacity, the trust or amendment is void.

Ignoring these rules can result in:

• Expensive and emotionally draining litigation among family members or beneficiaries.
• Delays in trust administration and distribution of assets.

Lavelle Law’s estate administration and probate attorneys provide experienced, personalized guidance to help you navigate all procedural and capacity requirements. Our experienced team can help you avoid these risks and ensure that your estate plans are effective, enforceable, and protected.

Thanks go to Anastasia Calkins for her help writing this article. For further inquiries or questions, please contact me at bwarens@lavellelaw.com or 847-705-7555.