Court of Appeals: Extra Deposition Did Not Violate In Terrorem Clause
In a rare venture into the world of trusts and estates and its most significant recent ruling regarding in terrorem clauses, the Court of Appeals in Matter of Singer, 2009 NY Slip Op 09265, reversed both the Surrogate’s Court and the Appellate Division, holding that a beneficiary’s conduct in deposing the testator’s former attorney regarding drafts of prior wills did not violate the in terrorem clauses in the propounded will. Specifically, the Court held that the safe harbor provisions of SCPA 1404 and EPTL 3-3.5 are not exclusive, and must be applied on a case-by-case basis. The decision has essentially set forth a two-prong analysis to determine whether a beneficiary’s conduct triggers an in terrorem clause, consisting of the following inquiries: (1) whether the conduct falls within the statutory safe harbor provisions, and if not (2) whether it violated the testator’s intent.
In Singer, the decedent had executed a last will and testament approximately one year prior to his death, in which he appointed his daughter, Vivien, as executor. He also created a corresponding revocable trust through which he bequeathed to Vivien his home, most of his tangible personal property, and the sum of $200,000. In the trust instrument, the decedent stated that Vivien’s inheritance was in recognition and gratitude for her extreme dedication and constant care. The decedent’s son, Alexander, received one-half of the remainder of the estate, to be split with Vivien, and each of Alexander’s sons was given a $15,000 bequest.
The will contained a typical, broad in terrorem clause, which stated, “if any beneficiary, shall, in any manner, directly or indirectly, contest, object to or oppose, or attempt to contest, object to or oppose the probate or validity of [the] will or revocable trust created by [the decedent], or any part of [his] estate plan, or any gifts made by [him], . . .” that beneficiary’s share of the estate would be forfeited (id. at *2). The decedent also included a second in terrorem clause that was explicitly directed at Alexander. That clause directed that Alexander “not take [decedent’s] daughter . . . to a . . . (religious court) or to any other court for any reason whatsoever . . . ,” and stated that if he did, the result would be the forfeiture of his and his sons’ inheritance (id.).
Continue Reading...Potential Court Approval of Religious Divorce Is Irrelevant to Right of Election
A recent decision emanating from the Kings County Surrogate’s Court provides another interesting application of the rules on entitlement to an elective share. In Matter of Atiram, 2009 NY Slip Op 52356(U), the petitioner sought a determination as to her right of election under EPTL 5-1.1A. She had married the decedent in 1952, but thirty-eight years later, the couple participated in a Jewish religious divorce under the supervision of the Rabbinical Alliance of America in New York. The Ministry of Religion of the State of Israel allegedly recognizes this type of divorce. New York, however, does not.
Pursuant to EPTL 5-1.2, a divorce disqualifies an individual from obtaining an elective share when “a final decree or judgment of divorce . . . recognized as valid under the laws of this state [that] was in effect when the deceased spouse died.” New York does not recognize a rabbinical divorce as a valid termination of a marriage because the laws of this state require divorce by “due judicial proceedings.” In light of this rule, the objectant in Atiram sought a stay of the petitioner’s application pending an Israeli court’s determination of the validity of the divorce by the laws of that jurisdiction which, she argued, would qualify as the requisite “judicial proceeding” for New York. The Court disagreed, and opined that the outcome of the Israeli proceeding was irrelevant to the petitioner’s right of election.
1
Specifically, the Court held that even if the Israeli court were to ultimately recognize that the decedent and the petitioner had been divorced under the laws of that country, such a determination would not have been in effect upon the decedent’s death. Therefore, because the marriage existed on the date of the decedent’s death, petitioner remained entitled to her elective share (see Matter of Atiram, citing Bennett v Thomas, 38 AD2d 682 [1st Dept 1971]; Matter of Berk, 20 Misc 3d 691 [Sur Ct, Kings County 2008]).
