Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Savio v. Peterson Complaint
Savio v. Peterson Complaint
COMPLAINT AT LAW
NOW COME Plaintiffs HENRY J. SAVIO and ANNA M. DOMAN, Co-Executors of the
Estate of KATHLEEN SAVIO, deceased, by and through their attorneys, MARTIN L. GLINK,
PETERSON and JAMES B. CARROLL, pleading hypothetically and in the alternative state as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
Executors of the Estate of Kathleen Savio, pursuant to the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, 740
ILCS et seq the Illinois Survival Act, 775 ILCS §5/27-6 and Illinois common law. It seeks to
recover damages from defendant Peterson for causing the death of Kathleen Savio, for other
losses arising from Kathleen Savio’s death, and for injuries suffered by Kathleen Savio prior to
1
2. Damages are also sought for the mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty and
dissipation of estate assets by defendant Carroll and defendant Peterson subsequent to Ms.
Savio’s death.
THE PARTIES
3. The Plaintiffs, Henry J. Savio and Anna M. Doman, were appointed Co-Executors
of the Estate of Kathleen Savio for, inter alia, purposes of administering an action on behalf of
Kathleen Savio’s two minor children, Thomas Drew and Kristopher Donald (see Order of
4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in Will County, Illinois because Plaintiff Anna
Doman resides in Will County, and most of the acts and omissions committed by the defendants
BACKGROUND
6. Kathleen Savio Peterson bore two sons, Thomas Drew and Kristopher Donald,
Peterson, was purportedly signed by Kathleen Savio Peterson. Said handwritten “Will” provided
2
equally for defendant Peterson’s two children from a prior marriage, appointed defendant
Peterson’s uncle, James B. Carroll, as Executor, and was purportedly witnessed by two co-
relationship with Stacy Cales, and divorce proceedings were initiated shortly thereafter.
proceeding, with custody of the children, personal property and finances contested. During
2002, with the divorce trial pending, there were a number of confrontations that resulted in
Kathleen filing police reports detailing defendant Peterson’s physical assaults upon her, and
10. On October 10, 2003, a judgment of divorce was entered on behalf of Kathleen
Savio Peterson and defendant Peterson, but the issue of the distribution of marital assets between
the parties was set down for trial on January 12, 2003 and was subsequently adjourned several
11. After Kathleen Savio’s divorce, Defendant Peterson was married for a fourth time, to
Stacy Ann Cales Peterson, and they settled in a residence located in Bolingbrook.
12. On March 1, 2004 at approximately 10:30 p.m. Kathleen Savio was found dead in
her residence, face down in an empty bathtub, with a number of fresh bruises, scrapes and
3
contusions on various parts of her body, along with a 1” laceration on the left parietal – occipital
13. There was no evidence of forced entry, no indication of any property removed and
the doors to the house were locked. Defendant Peterson previously was a co-owner of the
residence, and after Kathleen took sole possession of the residence, defendant Peterson had
gained entry to the residence, uninvited, by various means, including using a garage door opener
and, on one occasion, cutting out a portion of wall and crawling through the opening into the
residence.
14. The time of Kathleen’s death was estimated as early as Sunday morning, February
29, 2004.
15. A Coroners’ Jury Inquest was conducted, and after approximately one hour of
testimony and deliberation the death of Kathleen Savio was ruled an accidental drowning. The
Coroners’ Jury heard testimony from an Illinois State Trooper that never saw Kathleen’s body,
did not attend the autopsy and never interviewed defendant Peterson. The witness lacked
16. One of the jurors on the Coroners’ Jury was a police officer from another agency.
The juror knew defendant Peterson, and during deliberations this police officer assured the other
jurors that he personally knew defendant Peterson, and that he knew defendant Peterson would
4
17. On April 8, 2005 at a hearing to finalize the distribution of marital assets between
defendant Peterson and The Estate of Kathleen Savio, defendant James B. Carroll, defendant
Peterson’s uncle, and executor of Kathleen Savio’s estate, discharged the matrimonial attorney
retained to represent Ms. Savio’s interest in her marital assets, and appointed himself to represent
her marital assets, and proceeded to turn over all of Ms. Savio’s marital assets, that were to go to
18. The marital assets that defendant Carroll (defendant Peterson’s uncle), turned over to
defendant Peterson included, but were not limited to, the sale proceeds from the marital
residence, the sale proceeds from various businesses (bar, printing company and commercial
property), as well as the proceeds from various life insurance policies and personal property.
19. In addition, on the day of Kathleen Savio’s funeral, rather than attend a reception for
family and friends afterwards, defendant Peterson pulled a truck into the driveway of Kathleen
Savio’s residence, and removed a large amount of personal property that had not been
inventoried yet, nor which he had any claim to. Defendant Carroll knew or should have known
20. On August 31, 2007, Stacy Peterson (defendant Peterson’s fourth wife) met with
Pastor Neil Schori, at her request. At that meeting Stacy Peterson told Pastor Schori that she had
personal, detailed knowledge that defendant Peterson killed Kathleen Savio, and that she had
5
21. On October 28, 2007, less than eight weeks after sharing with Pastor Schori the
details of defendant Peterson’s involvement in Kathleen Savio’s death, and while contemplating
going to the authorities with this information, and also contemplating filing her own action for
divorce, Stacy Peterson disappeared – defendant Peterson was the last person known to have
22. Based on the highly suspicious conduct of defendant Peterson, and the
circumstances surrounding Stacy Peterson’s disappearance, the remains of Kathleen Savio were
exhumed.
23. In a subsequent autopsy, Ms. Savio’s death was re-classified as a homicide. This
conclusion was also reached in independent autopsies conducted by Dr. Michael Baden, at the
request of Ms. Savio’s family, and Dr. Larry Blum, at the request of the Will County State
Attorney’s Office.
24. On December 10, 2007 in an interview conducted by Mark Fuhrman for Fox
News, Pastor Schori recounted the details given him by Stacy Peterson relating to defendant
Peterson’s role in Kathleen Savio’s death, and Stacy’s fear of defendant Peterson, including:
• That during the night of February 28 – March 1, 2004 Stacy woke up and
Drew was gone. She checked the house and couldn’t find him.
6
• That in the early morning hours of March 1, 2004 Stacy observed defendant
Peterson standing in front of the washing machine, dressed in all black, and
holding a bag – defendant Peterson then removed his clothes and put them in
the washer, and emptied the contents of the bag he was holding, which
• Defendant Peterson told Stacy how he hit Kathleen on the back of the head,
COUNT I
WRONGFUL DEATH AGAINST DREW PETERSON
(ILLINOIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACT)
25. Count I is brought by the Co-Executors of the estate of Kathleen Savio against
defendant Peterson.
26. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 23 as though fully set
forth herein.
27. On or about February 28, 2004, Kathleen Savio died as the legal and proximate
28. On or about February 28, 2004 defendant Peterson planned and prepared to
assault, batter and murder Kathleen Savio and did thereafter brutally, and with malice
aforethought, stalk, attack, repeatedly beat, then drown, decedent Kathleen Savio. Defendant
7
Peterson left her dead in a bathtub. Kathleen Savio survived the brutal attack for some unknown
period of time and thereafter drowned to death as a direct legal and proximate result of the
29. The attack was perpetrated by defendant Peterson with full knowledge that the
assault and battery upon decedent’s body, and the forced submergence of her head under water
30. In doing the acts alleged herein, defendant Peterson acted with aggression, fraud
and malice, and plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages at an amount to be
proven at trial.
31. On February 28, 2004 Thomas Drew and Kristopher Donald Peterson were the
32. As a legal and proximate result of the acts of defendant Peterson, Thomas and
Kristopher Peterson suffered pecuniary loss, including loss of her society, companionship and
support.
33. Kathleen Savio (and the Estate of Kathleen Savio) also sustained injuries,
including pain and suffering, and incurred sums for funeral and other expenses related to her
death.
8
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Henry J. Savio and Anna M. Doman, as Co-Executors of the Estate of
Kathleen Savio, demand judgment be entered against defendant Peterson on Count I of the
Complaint at Law, for all damages to be proven at trial, in an amount in excess of One Hundred-
COUNT II
ILLINOIS SURVIVAL ACT CLAIM AGAINST
DREW PETERSON
34. Count II is brought by the Co-Executors of the Estate of Kathleen Savio against
defendant Peterson.
35. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 32 as though fully set
forth herein.
36. On February 28, 2004, Thomas and Kristopher Peterson were minor children and
the sons of Kathleen Savio. Thomas and Kristopher Peterson have suffered and will suffer a loss
of society as a result of the injuries and death suffered by Kathleen Savio. Additionally,
Kathleen Savio’s lost earnings and income, and thus, Thomas and Kristopher Peterson, will
suffer a loss of financial benefit as a result of the injuries and death suffered by Kathleen Savio.
37. Kathleen Savio (and the Estate of Kathleen Savio) sustained injuries, including
injuries to her person, endured pain and suffering and incurred sums for medical and hospital-
9
38. In doing the acts alleged herein, defendant Peterson acted with aggression, fraud
and malice, and plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages at an amount to be
proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Henry J. Savio and Anna M. Doman, as Co-Executors of the Estate of
Kathleen Savio, demand judgment be entered against defendant Peterson on Count II of the
Complaint at Law, for all damages to be proven at trial, in an amount in excess of One Hundred-
COUNT III
ASSAULT AND BATTERY AGAINST DREW PETERSON
39. Count III is brought by the Co-Executors of the Estate of Kathleen Savio against
defendant Peterson.
40. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 37 as though fully set
forth herein.
41. Defendant Peterson willfully and unlawfully touched Kathleen Savio when he
10
43. On February 28, 2004 Thomas and Kristopher Peterson, the minor sons of
Kathleen Savio, were the lawful heirs and survivors of Kathleen Savio.
44. As the legal and proximate result of the intentional acts of defendant Peterson,
Thomas and Kristopher Peterson suffered substantial pecuniary losses, including the loss of her
45. Kathleen Savio (and the Estate of Kathleen Savio) also sustained injuries,
including pain and suffering and incurred sums for funeral expenses and other expenses related
to her death.
46. In doing the acts alleged herein, defendant Peterson acted with aggression, fraud
and malice, and plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages at an amount to be
proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Henry Savio and Anna Doman, as Co-Executors of the Estate of
Kathleen Savio, demand judgment be entered against defendant Peterson on Count III of the
Complaint at Law, for all damages to be proven at trial, in an amount in excess of One Hundred-
11
COUNT IV
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST
JAMES B. CARROLL AND DREW PETERSON
47. Count IV is brought by the Co-Executors of the Estate of Kathleen Savio against
48. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 45 as though fully set
forth herein.
49. Drew Peterson was appointed guardian of the estate and person of his and
Kathleen Savio's two minor children, Thomas D. Peterson and Kristopher D. Peterson, by the
50. James B. Carroll was appointed Independent Executor of the Estate of Kathleen
Savio, deceased/ on March 23, 2005 by the Circuit Court of Will County in Case Number 04 P
188.
52. Under the terms of the will of Kathleen Savio, the beneficiaries of her estate are
her children, Thomas D. Peterson and Kristopher D. Peterson and her two stepchildren, Eric
12
53. At the time of the death of Kathleen Savio a divorce proceeding was pending
between her and defendant Peterson in the Circuit Court of Will County as Case Number 02 D
420. The divorce proceeding was bifurcated with a judgment of dissolution entered prior to the
death of the decedent and the court reserving the issue as to the division of the property of the
parties for further proceedings. Kathleen Savio died just days before the completion of the
proceedings.
54. Defendant Carroll as independent executor of the Estate, breached of his fiduciary
duties, wasted and mismanaged the Estate, by terminating the representation of divorce counsel
and by failing to retain alternate counsel. Further, appearing on behalf of the estate pro se, he
agreed to permit all of the assets of the marriage to pass to Drew Peterson, Kathleen Savio’s ex-
husband, and away from the Estate of Kathleen Savio, and its intended beneficiaries.
“agreement” with his uncle whereby Drew Peterson personally received all of the assets of the
marriage and in addition alleviated himself from the obligation to contribute to the education of
his children.
56. By virtue of the “agreement” entered into between defendant Peterson and
defendant Carroll, assets which should have been assets of the estate of Kathleen Savio were
13
57. In doing so, Drew Peterson violated his fiduciary obligations to protect and
preserve the assets of his wards. His conduct was intentional, willful, egregious and motivated
by financial gain to himself. His conduct was performed with full knowledge that the financial
58. James B. Carroll breached his fiduciary duty by failing to preserve and protect the
assets of the estate of Kathleen Savio and by entering into an agreement which was not in the
59. Further, Carroll did not retain independent counsel to represent the Estate despite
having a conflict of interest which made it impossible for Carroll to represent the Estate.
14
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, HENRY J. SAVIO and ANNA M. DOMAN, Co-Executors of
1. For judgment in favor of the Estate of Kathleen Savio and against Drew Peterson and/or
James B. Carroll, jointly and severally, in an amount sufficient to compensate the Estate for loss
of the funds diverted from the estate by them in the dissolution proceedings.
2. For an award of punitive damages against Drew Peterson and/or James B. Carroll in an
amount sufficient to deter others from such conduct including but not limited to reasonable
attorney's fees and costs necessary to bring and prosecute these proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________ _______________________________
HENRY J. SAVIO ANNA M. DOMAN
Co-Executor of the Estate of Co-Executor of the Estate of
Kathleen Savio Kathleen Savio
15