Appellate Division Cites Equitable Factors In Denying Entitlement to Elective Share
This month, the Second Department has issued two important decisions on entitlement to an elective share when a marriage occurred while the decedent lacked the requisite mental capacity to enter into a marital contract. Matter of Berk and Campbell v Thomas were both cases in which a caregiver secretly married the incapacitated individual for whom she worked, in an effort to manipulate a testamentary scheme for her own financial gain. Although the statutory limitations on disqualification from the right of election did not infringe upon the “surviving spouses’” rights to inherit from their respective “husbands” (see EPTL §5-1.2), the Appellate Division followed equitable principles in determining the parties’ respective rights.
In Matter of Berk, 20 Misc 3d 691 (Sur Ct, Kings County 2008), summary judgment was granted to the “surviving spouse” on the issue of her entitlement to an elective share, despite the suspicious circumstances surrounding her marriage to the decedent. A discussion of the lower court’s decision can be found in a prior entry. To briefly recap, the decedent’s “spouse” had been the decedent’s live-in caretaker since 1997. By the time the two secretly married in 2005, he had become completely dependent upon her. In fact, the marriage occurred almost exactly one year prior to his death, when he was 99 years old (she was 47), was suffering from dementia, and had been deemed by a physician to be incapable of entering into binding contracts or managing his social affairs. The lower court dismissed these facts as irrelevant for purposes of determining entitlement to the right of election. Rather, it limited its inquiry to (1) whether the petitioner was the decedent’s surviving spouse upon his death, i.e., whether the marriage was void under the circumstances; and (2) whether any of the disqualifying factors of EPTL §5-1.2 had been met. Because the petitioner demonstrated that she was the surviving spouse at the time of the decedent’s death, as the marriage was potentially voidable but not void according to DRL §7, the Surrogate held that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Indeed, the result of the determination that the marriage was voidable, not void, foreclosed inquiry into the validity of the marriage because no steps were taken to void the marriage during the decedent’s lifetime. But under the circumstances, where the marriage in issue had been kept a secret by the petitioner while the decedent was alive, no such steps could possibly have been taken.
In overturning the Surrogate’s decision, the Second Department recognized the existence of “a triable issue of fact as to whether the petitioner had forfeited the statutory right of election” on equitable grounds. In particular, relying on Campell v Thomas (2010 NY Slip Op 02082 [2d Dept 2010]), the Court stated that the estate had presented evidence that could prove the petitioner was aware of the decedent’s incapacity and inability to consent to marriage, and deliberately took “unfair advantage . . . by marrying that person for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary benefits that becomes available by virtue of being that person’s spouse, at the expense of that person’s intended beneficiaries" (Matter of Berk, 2010 NY Slip Op 02139 [2d Dept 2010]). Thus, the order was modified, denying the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, and reinstating counterclaims.
In sum, while the lower court’s holding was based upon statutory authority, equity was the cause for its reversal. The Appellate Division explained its rationale for this determination in further detail in its simultaneous decision in the very similar case of Campbell v Thomas.
In Campbell, the decedent was suffering from severe dementia and terminal cancer when he and his short-term caregiver, Nidia, who stayed with the decedent while his daughter went on vacation, were married. Immediately thereafter, while the decedent’s daughter was still away, Nidia transferred the decedent’s Citibank account from the decedent’s name to the couple jointly, and named herself the sole beneficiary of his retirement account.
Continue Reading...Estate Fiduciary Wrongly Deprived of Counsel of Choice?
A recent decision emanating from the Appellate Division, Second Department, Matter of Venezia, implicates two fundamental -- and seldom conflicting -- legal principles. The first of these is that a testator has the right to designate a legally qualified person to administer his or her estate, and that designation is entitled to great deference. And, secondly, a party’s entitlement to be represented by counsel of its choice is a valued right, and any attempt to restrict that right must be carefully scrutinized.
Matter of Venezia was a probate proceeding in which the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, after a hearing, granted the motion of the objectant to disqualify the nominated executrix from serving as such and reinstated letters of administration previously issued to the objectant.
The objectant’s proffered basis for removal of the petitioner as executrix -- which was accepted by the Surrogate’s Court -- was that the petitioner’s selection of counsel rendered her unqualified to serve. The objectant argued that he and the petitioner’s counsel had been adversarial in a prior conservatorship proceeding and that they had a hostile relationship.
The Appellate Division began its analysis by noting that “the right of a testator or testatrix to designate, among those legally qualified, who will settle his or her affairs, is not to be lightly discarded[,]” although “the Surrogate may disqualify an individual from receiving letters of administration where friction or hostility between such individual and a beneficiary or a co-administrator or co-administratrix, especially where such individual is at fault, interferes with the proper administration of the estate, and future cooperation is unlikely” (citations omitted).
The court noted, however, that the evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the objectant -- not the petitioner’s counsel -- was the source of the hostility between them. That fact, combined with the fact that there was no evidence that the petitioner was unqualified to serve as executrix or that she committed misconduct, lead to a determinations that the Surrogate’s Court erred in disqualifying the petitioner from serving as executrix.
Nevertheless, the Appellate Division directed that the petitioner retain new counsel to represent her, “given the hostility the objectant harbors for the petitioner’s counsel, and since it is unlikely that the objectant will cooperate with counsel in the future. . . .” Notably, the court made this determination notwithstanding its observation that “the record does not demonstrate that counsel retained by the petitioner acted improperly[.]”
So, let’s get this straight. The duly nominated fiduciary of a decedent’s estate hired an attorney of her choice. That attorney did nothing improper. Yet, due to “hostility” between the attorney and the objectant -- hostility created by the objectant -- and the fact that the objectant was not likely to cooperate with the petitioner’s counsel in the future, the court directed the petitioner to retain new counsel.
The Court of Appeals has made clear that a party’s entitlement to be represented by counsel of its choice is “a valued right and any restrictions [thereto] must be carefully scrutinized” (S&S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S.H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437 [1987]). It is not clear from the Appellate Division’s decision that it adequately considered this principle when it deprived the petitioner of her counsel of choice.
