In Kulas v. Vogler, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 172, 172 (1997), the claimant brought a claim against respondent "as 'an officer of the State' and named him in his capacity as the public administrator and guardian of Lake County, in which capacity he was alleged to have acted in the" real-estate transaction that was the subject of the claim. The respondent allegedly executed a real-estate purchase/sale contract in his capacity as a state official. Kulas, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 172. The claimant sought damages for the respondent's alleged breach of the contract to convey real estate. Kulas, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 172. The Court of Claims noted the respondent had argued the claim was "actually against the estate, and against the respondent only in his capacity as executor and not in his capacity as public administrator (i.e., not as a state official or state employee)." Kulas, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 173. The court concluded claimant's contract was "with the probate estate and not with the State of Illinois." Kulas, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 173. The court further stated, "It is clear that the operative capacity in which the respondent acted in this real- estate transaction was that of executor and not that of his public office. Moreover, no substantive or substantial nexus with his official capacity has been alleged." Kulas, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 174. the court then dismissed the claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Kulas, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. at 174.