However, as we stated above, recent case law, decided after the enactment of section 24-2 of the Probate Act, provides that a court's approval of an account has a res judicata effect for those parties who received proper notice and forecloses the period covered by the account from further review. See Kanfer, 2013 IL App (4th) 121144, ¶ 94; Matter of Estate of Brannan, 210 Ill. App. 3d 563, 569-70 (1991); Aschauer, 188 Ill. App. 3d at 68; In re Estate of Neisewander, 130 Ill. App. 3d 1031, 1033 (1985).¶ 30 The objector concedes that the Fourth District's decision in Aschauer "does seem to take the position that the law changed and that the Appellate Court could decide to decline to follow older cases."

Thus, for the purposes of judicial efficiency and to facilitate the sound and practical administration of the estate and trust in the present case, we find that the orders appealed in this case as to the estate and trust were final and appealable orders under Rule 304(b)(1) and that we have appellate jurisdiction to consider the merits of the issues raised as to those orders. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(1) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010); Hunter, supra § 154:4; Strange , 324 Ill. App. 3d at 41–42, 258 Ill.Dec. 68, 755 N.E.2d 149 ; In re Estate of Thorp , 282 Ill. App. 3d 612, 617, 218 Ill.Dec. 416, 669 N.E.2d 359 (1996) (stating that the interpretation of a will is one of the specific issues in the administration of an estate that requires certainty and for which an immediate appeal must be brought under Rule 304(b)(1) ); In re Estate of Neisewander , 130 Ill. App. 3d 1031, 1033, 86 Ill.Dec. 181, 474 N.E.2d 1378 (1985) (finding that an order approving an interim accounting of an estate was a final and appealable order under Rule 304(b)(1) ); Barnhart v. Barnhart , 415 Ill. 303, 309, 114 N.E.2d 378 (1953) (finding that the trial court's order, which determined the rights of the opposing claimants to certain trust property, was a final and appealable order); In re Estate of Russell , 372 Ill. App. 3d 591, 593, 310 Ill.Dec. 443, 866 N.E.2d 604 (2007) (applying Rule 304(b)(1) in a proceeding relating to the administration of a trust). In addition, as to the contempt order, because a penalty was imposed, that order was a final and appealable order as well.

¶ 89 Again, we refer to the three elements of res judicata, starting with the first element: the rendition of a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction ( River Park, 184 Ill.2d at 302, 234 Ill.Dec. 783, 703 N.E.2d 883). Each order approving an account was appealable under Rule 304(b)(1). See In re Estate of Neisewander, 130 Ill.App.3d 1031, 1033, 86 Ill.Dec. 181, 474 N.E.2d 1378 (1985). Each time a court of competent jurisdiction issued such an order, it issued a final judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata.

) The controversy at bar, however, arose not over the adequacy of Martin's accountings to the court, but rather over his fee petitions and similar petitions submitted by persons performing services for the estate. See, e.g., Norris v. Estate of Norris (1986), 143 Ill. App.3d 741, 493 N.E.2d 121; In re Estate of Neisewander (1985), 130 Ill. App.3d 1031, 474 N.E.2d 1378; In re Estate of Winston (1981), 99 Ill. App.3d 278, 425 N.E.2d 973. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of August 26, 1987, approving the executor and attorney fees of Martin, Schuyler and Baron and remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.

Generally, an executor has a fiduciary duty to act with the highest degree of fidelity and utmost good faith in handling estate assets. ( In re Estate of Neisewander (1985), 130 Ill. App.3d 1031, 474 N.E.2d 1378.) Such fiduciaries must perform their responsibilities with the degree of skill and diligence which an ordinary prudent man bestows on his own similar private affairs.