Court Awards Compensatory and Punitive Damages, and Attorney Fees, for Fraud in Probating Will
Stacey Castor (“Stacey”) made national news in 2007, arising from the 2005 murder of her husband, David Castor, Sr., (“Decedent’) as well as the attempted murder of her own daughter. Stacey was convicted of the murder. Having apparently also murdered a prior husband, Stacey became known as the “Black Widow.”
The Castor case recently moved from the criminal to a civil forum, in the form of a lawsuit brought by the son of the Decedent, David Castor, Jr. (“David” or “Plaintiff”), against Stacey and Lynn and Paul Pulaski ("Pulaskis”). David brought the suit in Supreme Court, Onondaga County, seeking recovery from the Pulaskis and from Stacey for fraud and conspiracy surrounding the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the Decedent. After the death of Decedent, Stacey had convinced the Pulaskis to sign their names as witnesses to a false will, benefiting her. The forged Will left Decedent’s estate to Stacey, and was considered in the criminal prosecution of Stacey as a prime motive for the murder of her husband.
The Supreme Court, Onondaga County handed down its decision on December 14, 2011.
During the course of the trial, the Pulaskis had testified that they had been duped by Stacey, and that their motives were good. Lynn Pulaski testified that Stacey had been her best friend. She had felt terrible because of what she had then thought was the suicide of Stacey’s husband, and she wanted to help Stacey out settling the Decedent’s estate.
The Supreme Court Justice (Paris, J.) was not buying it, concluding that,
[b]ased on the evidence and all the pleadings that make up the record of this particular case, including their testimony, it is obvious that Defendants Pulaski were not innocent pawns. They knew what they were doing was wrong and bore false witness to both the Will and Attestation Clause without any hesitancy or reservation. Thereafter, they executed the Attesting Witness Affidavits that they also knew were false. From the record, it is clear that they kept these falsehoods from the Surrogate’s Court and Plaintiff to his detriment throughout the estate proceedings. Defendants Pulaski only ‘came clean’ when the District Attorney’s investigators came knocking on their door and they were given immunity in return for their cooperation and testimony in the criminal prosecution of Co-Defendant Stacey Castor.
The Court continued:
[w]hile the genesis of this action is the heinous crime committed by Defendant Stacey Castor, Defendants Pulaski compounded the crime through their admitted dishonesty… Plaintiff was contesting the purported Last Will and Testament of his father, David W. Castor, Sr., being offered for probate by Defendant Stacey Castor. He withdrew his objections, as he credibly testified, in the face of Defendant Pulaskis’ subsequent execution of the Attesting Witness Affidavits… Defendants Pulaski admitted that they signed in 2005 as witnesses to Decedent’s Will which was dated 2003. Their reaffirmance of this falsehood by signing the Attesting Witness Affidavits, not only harmed Plaintiff, but also subjected the Surrogate’s Court to needless and unwarranted proceedings, thereby detracting from the orderly administration of that Court’s normal, proper and legitimate proceedings.
The Supreme Court went on to find that all three Defendants, the Pulaskis and Stacey, were jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. The Court assessed both compensatory and punitive damages against all the Defendants, and not just against Stacey, the murderer. As to the Pulaskis, the Court noted that their actions had “compelled Plaintiff to withdraw his objections to the probate of the Will and hoodwinked and deceived the Surrogate’s Court into probating a fraudulent instrument.” Their conduct “was so repugnant and reprehensible so as to satisfy the threshold of moral culpability necessary to allow the imposition of punitive damages."
Finally, in an interesting and significant further holding, the Court determined that the Plaintiff was entitled to the recovery of his attorney fees against the Defendants, including the Pulaskis.
Issues of Undue Influence
Undue influence is an issue commonly associated with Surrogate’s Court proceedings. Indeed, it is often the linchpin to the outcome of a matter, and as such, relevant to its strategy. This is most pointedly revealed by opinions rendered by the Surrogates of New York and Kings County this year, in which the issue of undue influence played a primary role in connection with a contested probate proceeding.
In In re Moles, N.Y.L.J., Apr. 18, 2011, p. 23 (Sur Ct, New York County), the preliminary executors of the estate moved for summary judgment dismissing the objections of the decedent’s nephew, who was the beneficiary of a prior will executed thirty years earlier than the propounded instrument. The objections alleged, inter alia, that the instrument was not duly executed, and that the instrument was procured by the fraud and undue influence of the decedent’s long-time companion, who was the sole beneficiary of the estate, and the named executor along with the attorney-draftsperson.
The undisputed record revealed that the decedent had a history of alcohol abuse for which she was hospitalized and later rehabilitated. Upon completion of her rehabilitation, she returned to New York City where she retained the services of a personal aide whom resided with her until her death twenty years later. Over the course of her employ, there was no dispute that the decedent and her aide became inseparable, spending every day together, and traveling domestically and overseas. Further, there was no dispute that the decedent was capable of making financial and personal decisions regarding her investments and health care.
The decedent’s treating physician testified that she always found the decedent fully responsive and rational. This was substantiated as well by the attorney-draftsperson of the instrument, who stated that he found the decedent alert, coherent and able to convey detailed information regarding her life situation and family.
Notably, the will execution was videotaped and supervised by the draftsperson’s colleague.
In granting the proponents summary relief, the court rejected the notion that the decedent’s early alcoholism impaired her capacity to execute a will, as well as the testimony of the videographer relied upon by the objectant, who testified that the decedent had difficulty identifying the President of the United States. The court held that this evidence paled in light of the reports and testimony of the professionals who treated and worked with the decedent during the period surrounding the execution of the instrument, all of which indicated that she possessed the minimal capacity required to make a valid Will.
As to the issue of undue influence, the court concluded that the objectant had failed to submit any evidence that the decedent’s aide had compelled or constrained the decedent to do anything against her free will. In fact, the objectant admitted that he saw the decedent at most one to two times a year, and that her other family members rarely visited her.
The court found it significant that the attorney-draftsperson of the instrument testified that the provisions of the Will were derived from instructions given to him by the decedent with no involvement of the decedent’s aide. To this extent, the court opined that the lack of involvement by the proponent in a will’s drafting and execution is inconsistent with any inference of undue influence, even where the disinherited party is a close family member. Further, the court held that even assuming the existence of a confidential relationship between the proponent and the decedent, it was counterbalanced by the evidence of the strong affection between the decedent and her aide during their twenty year relationship, the decedent’s expressed desire to leave her aide her entire estate, and her aide’s lack of involvement in the drafting of the Will.
Finally, the court concluded that the objectant had failed to produce a modicum of proof that anyone induced the decedent to execute her Will based upon a false statement.
In comparison to the holding in In re Moles, the court in In re Carter, N.Y.L.J., Apr. 18, 2011, p. 25 (Sur Ct, Kings County), found that the inference of undue influence required that the propounded instrument be denied probate. The facts of the case are in stark contrast to those in Moles and substantiate the differing opinions.
In Carter, the propounded instrument left the decedent’s entire estate, but for 25% percent of any cash due and owing to the decedent’s sole surviving heir, her sister, to a complete stranger (Frazier), who was also named the executor,. The instrument also directed that in the event the decedent’s sister should be admitted to a nursing home, her share should pass instead to Frazier, and that Frazier pay an amount, not to exceed 11 % of the residuary estate, to charities of his choice.
The record revealed that Frazier was 40 years the decedent’s junior, was not related to the decedent, yet, was her self-described caretaker, and that he was an instrumental force behind the execution of the propounded instrument. The court held that, under these circumstances, as well as events described in its own files and through the testimony of Frazier, an inference of undue influence existed requiring a hearing. Notably, the court found that Frazier had been previously appointed as fiduciary in a number of other estates of women significantly older than him, and with whom he had no relationship, that were strikingly similar to the factual situation involving this decedent.
Based on the testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing, the court concluded that Frazier had engaged in a systematic course to take over the personal and financial affairs of the decedent, whom he knew had been diagnosed with dementia, much as he did in the case of countless other elderly and frail women to whom he ingratiated himself. He moved into her home, put his name on her bank accounts, monitored her telephone calls, put her under surveillance and held her health care proxy. Significantly, the record also disclosed that in 2006, when the decedent was overtly suffering mentally, and when no attorney would draft a Will for her, he allegedly acceded to her insistence upon executing a new Will by retyping a prior Will of the decedent, with the decedent’s handwritten changes, and taking the decedent to her doctor’s office to have it signed and witnessed.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court concluded, inter alia, that Frazier’s testimony gave rise to a strong inference of undue influence, based in particular, upon his complete insinuation into the decedent’s life and financial affairs, the decedent’s dependence upon him for her basic needs, and his involvement in the preparation and execution of the instrument which made him the primary recipient of her estate. The court held that Frazier offered nothing to rebut this proof, but rather buttressed the result that the Will of the decedent was the product of his own decision-making, and control over its preparation and execution.
Accordingly, probate was denied.
|
Who are the Distributees?
Attempting to determine the rightful intestate distributees of decedents in kinship hearings can be interesting. To illustrate, in the most general way, how the process works in Surrogate’s Court, let us take the simple case of Joe, an MTA switchman who never executed a Will, never married, and died at the age of 90, having lived in a modest apartment in Flushing, New York for the last 70 years (except for the years 1944 through 1949 when he served in the armed forces). There is no sign that Joe has any family. What happens to Joe’s $75,000 condominium and $2 million in cash and marketable securities?
Joe’s assets will be administered by the Public Administrator - the Public Administrator will marshal Joe’s assets, pay all debts and administration expenses, and after due diligence, will render an accounting to whatever potential heirs the Public Administrator is able to locate through due diligence and the Attorney General of the State of New York. To get a bit of an idea as to what the Public Administrator does, check out these websites, http://queenscountypa.com/ http://www.nyc.gov/html/kcpa/html/home/home.shtml. (You can also follow the Queens County Public Administrator on twitter if you are interested).
In Joe’s case, the Public Administrator is able to determine through due diligence, e.g., talking to Joe’s neighbors, reviewing Joe’s birth certificate found among Joe’s personal effects, looking at census records, looking at Joe’s draft registration card, and looking at social security records, the identity of Joe’s long deceased mother, and two gentlemen who may be cousins of Joe on his mother’s side (maternal cousins). The Public Administrator is unable to obtain any information about Joe’s father. The Public Administrator has not found any records showing that Joe was married or had any children.
Because Joe’s intestate distributees are unknown, the Public Administrator will request that the Surrogate permit the Public Administrator to pay the assets of Joe’s estate to the Commissioner of Finance for the City of New York (Comptroller of the State of New York for Counties outside of New York City) in the absence of a determination of Joe’s intestate distributees. The Public Administrator would cite to the unknown heirs of Joe’s estate by publication, the two potential maternal cousins, and the Attorney General. If no-one appeared in the accounting proceeding, the assets would be deposited with the Commissioner of Finance and would be subject to being recovered by Joe’s heirs that come forward and prove heirship. If potential heirs appear in the accounting proceeding, there will be a kinship hearing in the context of the accounting proceeding. The kinship hearing in that SCPA § 2222 withdrawal proceeding would proceed in the same manner as a kinship hearing in the accounting proceeding. Those persons claiming to be heirs of Joe and seeking to receive Joe’s assets would be required to prove that they and Joe share a common ancestor and that there are no missing or unknown intestate distributees with an equal or superior right to inherit.
Kinship hearings often involve alleged heirs presenting documentary evidence, such as birth certificates, death certificates, social security applications, mortuary records, probate files, obituaries, baptismal certificates, marriage certificates, decrees of divorce, census records and any other publicly available documents that are useful in demonstrating kinship. The presentation of this documentary evidence will also be accompanied by the testimony of witnesses. In Joe’s case, his birth certificate and his signed social security application indicate that his father is unknown. In Joe’s case, we might also hear from the fellow who lived in the apartment next to Joe, who would testify that he never saw anyone visit Joe, and that he spoke with Joe quite often and that Joe stated that he regretted that he was never married and never had children. The absence of any record of Joe being married or having children (after a thorough search of public records) together with Joe’s neighbor’s testimony, would be highly probative to the issue of whether Joe died with a spouse and issue, as these would be the first people to take in intestacy. This testimony would be admissible over a hearsay objection based on the pedigree exception to hearsay. There are certain presumptions that a person claiming to be an heir can avail themselves of, such as the presumption that a person is deemed to have predeceased the decedent if he would have been 100 years old at the time of decedent’s death. Another oft employed presumption arises by statute, namely, the three-year presumption under SCPA § 2225. In some cases a professional genealogist will assist counsel in attempting to prove heirship, and even scientific evidence, such as DNA evidence, might come into play in a kinship hearing.
Kinship proceedings, aside from telling sometimes compelling narratives of peoples’ lives, can be illuminating from a historical perspective. Census records reveal extended families struggling to make it in their new country in ethnic enclaves, and the chaos of World War II and the devastation of the Holocaust can present special challenges to those attempting to prove kinship to a decedent. With vast public records destroyed and the world having been robbed of the memories of millions of people, evidentiary hurdles may abound. In similar fashion, the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination present challenges when attempting to prove kinship to an African-American decedent.
19 Year-Old Instrument Denied Probate as Ancient Document
Generally, the testimony of at least one attesting witness is required to probate a will. But practitioners will sometimes face a situation where all of the witnesses to a propounded instrument are unavailable or cannot be located to testify in support of the document. In such cases, the common law “ancient document rule” may be relied upon to probate the instrument if it is of a certain age.
New York Courts have been utilizing the ancient document rule as a practical basis for probate since the early nineteenth century (see In re Hehn’s Will, 6 Misc 2d 801 [Sur Ct, Nassau County 1957]). But in the recent case of Matter of Santoro, 2011 NY Slip Op 50920(U), Surrogate McCarty of Nassau County addressed the question of whether the rule can be relied upon where the propounded instrument is only nineteen years old; he held that it cannot.
The basis for the ancient document rule has been explained as twofold: (1) “after a long lapse of time, ordinary testimonial evidence from those who saw the document’s execution or knew the style of handwriting or heard the party admit the execution is practically unavailable, and a necessity always exists for resorting to circumstantial evidence”; and (2) “the circumstance of age-or long existence-of the document, together with its place of custody, its unsuspicious appearance, and perhaps other circumstances, suffice, in combination, as evidence to be submitted to the jury” (In re Hehn’s Will, 6 Misc 2d 801 [Sur Ct, Nassau County 1957], quoting VII Wigmore on Evidence [Third Ed.] §2137]).
In his analysis, Surrogate McCarty did not raise any basis to dispute the genuineness of the instrument, and noted that the application was uncontested. However, he explained that the common law ancient document rule requires the propounded instrument to be at least thirty years old, although some liberal courts have adopted the federal twenty-year rule. Application of the rule to a nineteen-year old instrument was unprecedented. Accordingly, it was held that the instrument could not be probated as an ancient document.
Despite its failure to qualify as an ancient document, the Court explained a statutory basis upon which the instrument may be probated absent the testimony of any witnesses. SCPA §1405[4] provides that the will may be admitted to probate based solely upon “the handwriting of the testator and of at least one of the attesting witnesses and such other facts as would be sufficient to prove the will”. To satisfy this requirement, the Surrogate noted that the handwriting of the predeceased attorney draftsman could be obtained from his original will that was on file with the Court, and proved based upon an affidavit from a handwriting expert that the signature on the propounded instrument was written by the same person who executed his will. Similarly, he stated that the Court would be satisfied with the genuineness of the subject decedent’s signature based upon an affidavit from one of her children or other relatives. Thus, it appears that the propounded instrument will ultimately be admitted to probate upon the Court’s receipt of the requisite testimony.
The decision in Matter of Santoro serves as a reminder to practitioners that there may often be more than one approach to probating an instrument absent the requisite support from witnesses, and perhaps introduces a method for doing so that may not have otherwise been considered. If a predeceased witness died testate, his will is (in most cases) a public record from which a handwriting expert should be able to testify in satisfaction of SCPA §1405[4]. Nonetheless, contested proceedings of this kind are unlikely to be so simple, especially if the surviving witness were to testify against the instrument (see SCPA §1405[3]).
Undue Influence or Duress?
In a recent decision in the Estate of Mildred Rosasco , Surrogate Glen carefully explains the difference between undue influence and duress, two legal concepts that have become conflated in Surrogate's Court practice.
If you speak with a trusts and estate's lawyer and ask her to define undue influence, you will hear something like “undue influence is moral coercion that destroys a testator’s will to act independently and leads the testator to act contrary to his own desires because he cannot refuse or is too weak to resist.” However confident that lawyer sounded in her recitation of this definition, understand that the Court of Appeals has stated, as Surrogate Glen tells us, that "[i]t is impossible to define or describe with precision and exactness what is undue influence . . ." In Rosasco, Surrogate Glen explains how courts have struggled with the concept of undue influence, citing to decisions dating back to the 19th Century, and how the Court of Appeals, in Matter of Walther (6 NY2d 49 [1959]), affirmed the explanation of undue influence cited above.
What is critical in a probate contest involving an objection on the grounds of undue influence is that a prima facie case of undue influence requires a showing, not only of opportunity and motive to exercise undue influence, but also, of the actual exercise of undue influence. Although undue influence can be proven by circumstantial evidence, as there is rarely direct proof of undue influence, it can only be proven by substantial circumstantial evidence. Undue influence is difficult to prove, but the burden of proving undue influence is eased where there is a showing that the testator was in a relationship of trust and dependence with proponent of the will, i.e., the existence of a confidential relationship. Surrogate Riordan’s decision in Matter of Zirinsky is a must read for anyone trying to get a handle on undue influence (Also review the Appellate Court decision on the appeal of the Zirinsky case).
As to duress, Surrogate Glen, citing the Restatement (Third) of Property, notes that duress is something different from undue influence. She explains that a will or a bequest is procured by duress if the wrongdoer threatened to perform or did perform a wrongful act that coerced the testator into doing something that she would not otherwise have done. A “wrongful act” in this definition means a criminal act or an act that the wrongdoer had no right to do.
One can understand how the two concepts differ by examining a three-year-old child’s threats. When a three-year-old has his mind set on eating a second piece of chocolate or on watching a cartoon that features incredible acts of violence, he might threaten to flush his father "down the toilet." In the alternative, he might repeatedly and sincerely state that he will not talk to his father until he receives his chocolate or is gratified by watching Spiderman deliver bone-crushing blows. Flushing another human being down the toilet would certainly constitute a crime. The three-year-old child’s father taking this threat seriously and acting on this threat could be said to be acting under duress. On the other hand, absent some legal relationship, such as that which a guardian has with his ward, a person is well within his rights to refuse and refrain from talking or associating with another. If the three-year-old child’s father is acting on the child’s threat to cut off all communication, he might be said to be acting as a result of undue influence.
Same-Sex Marriages and the Marriage Recognition Rule
A recent decision of the Appellate Division, First Department, demonstrates that notwithstanding the New York State Legislature’s failure to enact legislation authorizing same-sex marriages in New York State, the Surrogate’s Courts will still recognize such marriages pursuant to the so-called “marriage recognition rule.”
In Matter of Ranftle, 81 AD2d 566 (1st Dept 2011), the Appellate Division was called upon to determine the propriety of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Kristen Booth Glen, S.), denying the vacatur of a decree admitting a will to probate. In his will, the decedent made bequests to three brothers and a goddaughter. He left his residuary estate to his same-sex partner, the respondent on the appeal. Respondent and the decedent had married in Canada two months prior to the execution of the decedent’s will. The decedent nominated respondent as the executor of his estate. Respondent, as the executor named in the will, commenced a probate proceeding, identifying himself as the decedent's surviving spouse and sole distributee of the decedent's estate. Respondent subsequently served the legatees with notice of probate, and the Surrogate's Court ultimately issued a decree granting probate of the will.
The Surrogate’s Court issued an opinion finding that respondent was “decedent’s surviving spouse and sole distributee” and, accordingly, determined that service of process in the probate proceeding was not required to issue to anyone under SCPA § 1403(1)(a), which enumerates those entitled to service of process in probate proceedings. The court found that the decedent’s same-sex marriage to respondent was valid under Canada law and did not fall into either of the two exceptions to the “marriage recognition rule,” as the marriage was not affirmatively prohibited or “proscribed by natural law.” Accordingly, the court found that the marriage was entitled to recognition.
One of the decedent’s brothers, the appellant in the appeal, sought vacatur of the probate decree, asserting that the marriage was not entitled to recognition by the court as it violated New York public policy. Accordingly, appellant argued that the decedent’s three brothers were the sole distributees of the estate and therefore entitled to process in the probate proceeding. The Surrogate’s Court denied the petition for vacatur.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Surrogate’s order. It explained that New York’s “marriage recognition rule affords comity to out-of-state marriages and ‘recognizes as valid a marriage considered valid in the place where celebrated’” (id., quoting Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18, 25 [1881]). The court also noted, however, that the rule does not apply where the foreign marriage is “‘contrary to the prohibitions of natural law or the express prohibitions of a statute’” (id., quoting Moore v Hegeman, 92 NY 521, 524 [1883]). However, same-sex marriage, according to the court, does not fall within either of the two exceptions to the marriage recognition rule (see id.).
The Appellate Division expressly rejected appellant’s argument that the Legislature’s failure to enact a bill authorizing same-sex marriages demonstrates that such marriages are against the public policy of the State. The court made clear that the Legislature’s failure to enact a bill “‘affords the most dubious foundation for drawing positive inferences’” (id., quoting Clark v Cuomo, 66 NY2d 185, 190-191 [1985]).
Notably, in denying the petition for vacatur, the Surrogate relied upon the decision of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in Martinez v County of Monroe, 50 AD3d 189 [4th Dept 2008], lv. dismissed, 10 NY3d 856 [2008). There, the Appellate Division held that a Canadian same-sex marriage was entitled to recognition for purposes of the laws governing spousal health care benefits. The court determined that there is no legislation in the State prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages validly entered into outside of New York and, thus, the “positive law” exception to the marriage recognition rule does not apply. Moreover, the court determined that the “natural law” exception to the rule also does not apply to same-sex marriages, as that exception has generally been limited to marriages involving polygamy or incest, or marriages “offensive to the public sense of morality to a degree regarded generally with abhorrence” (id., quoting Matter of May, 305 NY 486, 493), which would not include a same-sex marriages.
The Appellate Division in Ranftle agreed with the Surrogate’s Court that the appellant’s “public policy” argument was specifically addressed and rejected by the Martinez court.
Thus, while the New York State Legislature has not seen fit to enact legislation authorizing same-sex marriages, it also has not enacted legislation prohibiting the recognition of such marriages validly entered into outside of the State. Accordingly, same-sex spouses may well be entitled to the rights and benefits generally afforded to heterosexual spouses, whether they be spousal health-care benefits or inheritance rights.
The Slayer Rule
As articulated by the Court of Appeals in Riggs v Palmer, the so-called “slayer rule” provides that “[n]o one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime” (Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 511 [1889]). Although “[t]his maxim is generally applied in cases where one intentionally murders another person or causes the death of another person by some felonious or other intentional or reckless criminal conduct”, its application “is not always straightforward” (Matter of Wright, 859 NYS2d 864, 866 [Sur Ct, Westchester County 2008]).
Nowhere is that more clear than in a case that is developing in Suffolk County. According to published reports, after choking his mother-in-law Dianne Edwards (“Dianne”) to death, Brandon Pallidino was convicted and, ultimately, sentenced to prison for his crime (see Carol MacGowan, “Fight Over Estate Continues After Sentencing”, Newsday, Feb. 3, 2011). Adding insult to injury, however, it appears that Brandon is now seeking to take a substantial portion of Diane’s estate, as a beneficiary of his deceased wife Deanna Palladino’s (“Deanna”) estate (see id.).
Apparently, Dianne died, testate, bequeathing her entire estate to her daughter, Deanna (see id.). Although Deanna survived Dianne, she died of an accidental drug overdose in February, 2010, leaving no will (see id.). Under normal circumstances, Brandon, as Deanna’s surviving spouse (with no issue), would inherit Deanna’s entire estate, including any bequests that she received from Dianne (see EPTL 4-1.1[a][2]).
Of course, these are not normal circumstances. Since Brandon killed Dianne, the critical question for the Surrogate’s Court may be whether New York’s slayer rule precludes Brandon from inheriting Dianne’s property, not as a direct beneficiary of Dianne’s estate, but, indirectly, through Deanna’s estate. While standards of common sense and decency would seem to render this an easy question to answer in the negative, the issue is not clear-cut, as the slayer rule may not apply to Brandon’s situation. There appears to be support for the proposition that the slayer rule only applies when there is “[a] direct causal relationship between the unworthy act (the killing of the decedent) and the potential for inheritance” (Richard Lewis Brown, “Undeserving Heirs? – The Case of the “Terminated” Parent”, 40 U. Rich. L. Rev. 547, 560 [2006]; see also Matter of Parente, NYLJ, 6/10/2010, at 44, col. 3 [Sur. Ct., Nassau County] [finding Riggs inapplicable, as the victims’ killing did not inure “to the wrongdoer’s benefit as a beneficiary of” the victims’ estates]).
Thus, Riggs may not preclude Brandon from inheriting, indirectly, what was once Dianne’s property, as there is no direct causal link between Dianne’s death and his inheriting from Deanna’s estate. Although the slayer rule would certainly disqualify Brandon from being a beneficiary of Diane’s estate, Brandon is not due to inherit any of Diane’s property in that capacity, but rather, indirectly, as the sole intestate distributee of Deanna, her post-deceased daughter.
However, a far more just result would seem to be one that prevents Brandon from receiving any of Dianne’s property, even indirectly as a beneficiary of Deanna’s estate. Legislative action may be required to bring about such a result.
Based upon the reports published in newspapers over the past several weeks, it appears that this case is on course to be litigated in the Surrogate’s Court. While reasonable minds can disagree as to what is just, the matter is certain to raise interesting questions not often dealt with in the context of a Surrogate’s Court proceeding, leaving the parties sharply divided as to the proper result.
Mama Cass's Estate - California Dreamin' or a Nightmare?
While the myth that Ellen Naomi Cohen, a/k/a Mama Cass, choked to death on a ham sandwich was debunked years ago,[1] the perhaps less sensational “fact” that the singer died intestate has only recently become the subject of dispute. Approximately 35 years after her death, it appears that Ms. Cohen, a member of the 1960’s rock-folk group The Mamas & The Papas, did in fact make a Will, and the beneficiaries thereunder are suing the singer’s estate-planning attorneys for concealing its existence, under theories of malpractice, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.
An article from today's New York Law Journal reports that according to a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles earlier this month, the law firm of Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp prepared a Will for Ms. Cohen in 1967, but the firm advised the singer’s heirs in 1974, when she died, that no Will could be located. Accordingly, the assets of Ms. Cohen’s estate were distributed entirely to her daughter, in accordance with California intestate law. The plaintiffs’ complaint also alleges that the law firm had conflicts of interest in that it simultaneously represented Ms. Cohen’s estate and some of her creditors.
Recently, one of Ms. Cohen’s sisters, Leah Kunkel, apparently came across information on the internet that led her to believe that a Will existed. She contacted Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp to inquire, and an archivist located the Will in a firm file. Reportedly, under the Will, one-third of Ms. Cohen’s estate would have passed to her mother, who is now deceased, and ultimately would have passed to Ms. Kunkel and a brother -- the plaintiffs.
Ironically, at the time it might hardly have been worth the search for the missing testamentary instrument; Ms. Cohen’s estate was insolvent when she died. However, royalties payable to the estate over the years have been substantial, the article reports, and the plaintiff’s lawyer claims his clients are entitled to “seven figures.”
Not surprisingly, the law firm has denied that it concealed the existence of the Will, calling the allegation “utterly absurd.” It also commented that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations.
[1] According to urban legend, the singer died choking on a ham sandwich because a partially eaten ham sandwich was found by her bed. Prior to an autopsy, the police speculated that she might have choked to death on the sandwich; she did not. She officially died of a heart attack (see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0254177/bio).
Witness Beneficiary Rule Applicable to Instrument Executed Outside of New York?
An interesting issue recently arose in an uncontested probate proceeding before the Bronx County Surrogate’s Court, namely, whether the disqualifying provision of EPTL §3-3.2(a)(1) is applicable to an instrument executed outside of this jurisdiction.
In Estate of Alford, 2010 NY Slip Op 51707(U) (Sur Ct, Bronx County 2010), the sole beneficiary of the decedent’s estate was a Canadian citizen and was one of two attesting witnesses to the subject will. The execution of the instrument occurred in Ontario, Canada.
Pursuant to EPTL §3-3.2(a)(1),
(a) An attesting witness to a will to whom a beneficial disposition or appointment of property is made is a competent witness and compellable to testify respecting the execution of such will as if no such disposition or appointment had been made, subject to the following:
(1) Any such disposition or appointment made to an attesting witness is void unless there are, at the time of execution and attestation, at least two other attesting witnesses to the will who receive no beneficial disposition or appointment thereunder.
In other words, the statute mandates the invalidation of a bequest to the witness beneficiary if he or she is one of two attesting witnesses whose testimony would be required to probate the instrument. While a distributee, such as the beneficiary this case, remains entitled to his intestate share of the estate even if he is a witness to the execution of the will (EPTL §3-3.2(a)(3)), this beneficiary would inherit more under the will than his intestate share.
In making its determination, the court considered the following factors: (1) that EPTL § 3-5.1(c) provides that a will is valid in New York if it was validly executed in another jurisdiction; (2) that in Canada, a bequest to a witness beneficiary is void only if there was undue influence over the testator, which was not alleged here; and (3) in this particular case, no interested party contested the will or requested that the beneficiary testify. Thus, because it was determined that the instrument was validly executed pursuant to the laws of Ontario, Surrogate Holzman held that EPTL §3-3.2(a)(1) was inapplicable. Accordingly, the beneficiary’s devise was not reduced to his intestate share by statute.
The court’s analysis begs the question of whether the conclusion would have been the same if the probate proceeding had been contested. Although the witness’ testimony would be necessary if that were the case, the fact remains that absent a finding of undue influence, the will and the bequest itself would be valid pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which it was executed. However, if any allegations of undue influence had been made, such claims would call into question the validity of the instrument in Ontario, Canada, and thus, undermine two of the bases for Surrogate Holzman’s decision.
Consequently, it appears that the applicability of EPTL §3-3.2(a)(1) in the case of wills executed outside of this jurisdiction is
highly fact sensitive and must be determined on a case by case basis.
Motion to Dispense with Testimony of Uncooperative Attesting Witness Denied
In Matter of Smith, 2010 NY Slip Op 20381 (Sur Ct, Bronx County), Surrogate Holzman recently addressed a proponent’s motion to dispense with the testimony of an attesting witness at the SCPA §1404 stage of a probate proceeding. The subject witness had relocated to Florida since the date of the execution of the propounded instrument, and had been uncooperative with the attorney-draftsman, also the attorney for the proponent, for reasons unbeknownst to him. One of the respondent’s daughters opposed the motion.
Ultimately, after being contacted by an investigator hired by the proponent, the witness agreed to a deposition via video conference, assuming she would remain in Florida. Nonetheless, presumably due to disobliging nature of the witness, the proponent sought to dispense with her testimony.
In support of her motion, the proponent argued that that a commission to obtain the subject witness’ testimony was unnecessary in view of the fact that the attorney-draftsman and one attesting witness had already been deposed, and the uncooperative witness had signed a self-proving affidavit at the time of the execution. She further asserted that she would consent to a commission to obtain the witness’ testimony in Florida only if the cost were borne by the party opposing the motion. Indeed, the proponent claimed that funding the commission would be a hardship for the estate because its only asset was a parcel of real property.
In response, the opposing party argued that the cost of the commission could be covered by the sale of the estate’s real property, and that testimony of the second attesting witness was pertinent to clarify the events of the execution ceremony.
SCPA §1405 provides that the testimony of an attesting witness can be dispensed with under limited circumstances. Specifically, pursuant to statute the court must be satisfied that, if living, the witness “cannot with due diligence be found within the state or cannot be examined by reason of his physical or mental condition . . .” (SCPA §1405[1]). Thus, the only scenario in which an out-of-state witness’ testimony may be dispensed with is if his examination cannot be obtained with reasonable diligence; but if the testimony can be obtained, SCPA §1405(2) mandates that it proceed by commission upon the demand of any party. Accordingly, Surrogate Holzman denied the motion, granting the respondent’s daughter’s request that the testimony of the Florida witness proceed by commission.
With respect to the issue of which party would bear the costs of the examinations, the court explained that SCPA §1404(5) provides that the estate is to pay for either, “(1) the first two attesting witnesses within the state or (2) if there is no competent witness within the state, the witness without the state who resides closest to the county in which probate proceedings are pending” (Matter of Smith, 2010 NY Slip Op 20381 , *2 [Sur Ct, Bronx County]). The costs of all other examinations are to be governed by Article 31 of the CPLR (see SCPA §1404[5]). Thus, because one of the witnesses in issue resided within the state, the subject examination fell into the latter category.
According to CPLR 3116(d), “unless the court orders otherwise, the party taking the deposition shall bear the expense thereof”. Consequently, the court opined that because the respondent failed to present good cause to persuade it to deviate from that rule, respondent was to pay for the examination. The court further held that the respondent may proceed with the examination by video conference if she were to find it more cost effective than a commission, and, notably, that the proponent may renew her motion to dispense with the testimony if the examination were not arranged within 90 days of the decision and order.
It appears that the latter portion of this holding is simply a logical extension of the statute. If the party who demanded the examination neglects to ensure its occurrence, it is arguably deemed abandoned. Interestingly, however, the statute includes no such provision.
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.
No "Wiggle Room" In After-Born Statute
In Matter of Gilmore, 1/19/2010 NYLJ 21 (col 1), Nassau County Surrogate John B. Riordan declined to expand the reach of EPTL 5-3.2 (the so-called “after-born statute”) to non-marital children known to, or acknowledged by, the decedent after execution of his will.
In Gilmore, a probate proceeding, two non-marital children sought to have their status as beneficiaries determined as a preliminary matter. The parties consented to have the Court assume the truth of the claimants’ allegations for a determination of whether as a matter of law those allegations stated a cause of action entitling the claimants to after-born status.
The decedent died in January, 2007, survived by eleven children, including three from a first marriage, four from a second marriage, and four alleged non-marital children. The propounded will, however, benefited only one child from the first marriage. That child, also the petitioner and named executor, was to inherit the several-million-dollar estate. The claimants were two non-marital children born prior to the decedent’s execution of the will, but allegedly became known to and were acknowledged by the decedent only subsequent to the will’s execution.
The court explained that EPTL 5-3.2 creates a rule of presumed intent for a testator who may have inadvertently omitted as a beneficiary a child born after he executed his will -- “If he gave something to existing children and the after-born is neither provided for nor mentioned in the will and unprovided for by some settlement, the after-born shares in the gift to existing children.” Pursuant to an amendment to the statute (which merely codified existing case law), non-marital after-born children who can duly establish their inheritance rights are entitled to the same benefits under the statute as marital children.
The claimants in Gilmore alleged -- and it was accepted as true for purposes of the motion -- that nearly a decade after the decedent executed his will he underwent DNA tests which revealed to him for the first time that he was their biological father. Although the claimants were born long before the execution of decedent’s will, they claimed that as they were only known or acknowledged by their father after execution of his will, they should be accorded the same presumption of inadvertent disinheritance as after-born children.
The Court rejected the claimants’ argument, however, noting that pursuant to the clear and unambiguous language of the statute, a child is entitled to after-born rights only if born after execution of the will. The only reported exception to this rule -- for a child adopted after the execution of a will, even though born previously -- had no application to the case at bar.
Because the language of the statute was clear, speaking only of a “child born after the execution of a last will” (EPTL 5-3.2 [a]), the Court refused to extend the scope of the statute to a non-marital child who is known or acknowledged by a decedent only after execution of his will. “To engraft exceptions where none exist,” according to the Court, “are trespasses by a court upon the legislative domain”
Summary Judgment Granted, Dismissing Objections and Admitting Will to Probate
In recent years, Surrogate’s Courts have become increasingly inclined to grant motions for summary judgment in contested probate proceedings when warranted. A decision issued last week in Monroe County is yet another example of this trend. While the evidence presented by the objectants in this particular case appears to be exceptionally weak, the following analysis provides a cohesive illustration of the considerations and standards that Surrogates routinely utilize in analyzing typical objections.
In Matter of Feller, 2010 NY Slip Op 50001(U), eight of the decedent’s eleven known distributees filed objections to probate, alleging the customary lack of due execution, lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The decedent executed a last will and testament nine months prior to her death, leaving her estate to ten charities and four individuals in equal shares, and naming the attorney-draftsman as executor. The New York State Attorney General’s Office filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the objections.
Due Execution
The objectants contended that the will was not duly executed within the requirements of EPTL 3-2.1 because the attorney-draftsman/proponent, not the testator, requested that that the witnesses act. But the testimony of the attorney-draftsman demonstrated that the testatrix responded in the affirmative when questioned as to whether she wanted those present to witness the execution of the instrument. The Court opined that this conduct coupled with the circumstances surrounding the execution ceremony satisfied the due execution requirements of EPTL 3-2.1. Indeed, “[a]ttorneys routinely lead their clients through the will execution formalities in order to ensure that the requirements of EPTL 3-2.1 are satisfied . . . and . . . publication and instruction . . . is not required to be in any ‘ironclad ceremonial or ritualistic language’” (Matter of Feller, supra, citing In re Douglas’ Will 193 Misc 623, 631-632 [Sur Ct, Broome County 1948]).
Testamentary Capacity
With respect to testamentary capacity, the Court noted the presumption in favor of capacity when a will is drafted by, and the execution supervised by, an attorney. In this case, the Court held that the proponent established a prima facie case of the requisite capacity based upon the following facts:
· The decedent herself sought the services of the attorney-draftsman;
· The decedent personally met with the attorney-draftsman and brought detailed notes as to her desired estate plan;
· The decedent told the attorney-draftsman about her familial situation;
· The witnesses were aware of the decedent’s involvement in her estate planning, and testified that she appeared to have no visual, auditory or cognitive difficulties; and
· The decedent made specific and accurate changes to the draft of the will.
In fact, the only basis for the allegation of lack of capacity was one of the objectant’s observations that the decedent had appeared preoccupied, reserved and distracted during a visit that occurred around the time that the will had been executed. Citing holdings of the Appellate Division that evidence of sadness or confusion alone is insufficient to prove lack of capacity, the Court rejected this contention. The Court further explained that a diagnosis of dementia, Alzheimer’s, or simply old age, without more, would also be insufficient to override a prima facie showing of capacity (id., citing Matter of Nofal, 35 AD3d 1132 [3d Dept 2006]; Matter of Castiglione, 40 AD3d 1227 [3d Dept 2007]; Matter of Minasian, 149 AD2d 511 [2d Dept 1989]; Matter of Hedges, 100 AD2d 586 [2d Dept 1984]).
Undue Influence
Addressing the claims of undue influence, the court reiterated that it is an objectant’s burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) motive, (2) opportunity, and (3) actual undue influence. Undue influence must amount to “a moral coercion, which restrained independent action and destroyed free agency or which . . . constrained the testator to do that which was against his free will and desire . . .” (id.,quoting Children’s Aid Society of NY v Loveridge, 70 NY 387, 394 [1877])., The Court further noted that undue influence may proved by circumstantial evidence, “but the circumstances must lead to it not only by a fair inference but as a necessary conclusion” (id., quoting In re Will of Henderson, 253 AD 140 [4th Dept 1937]).
The objectants’ claim of undue influence alleged that the proponent persuaded the testator to change her funeral home of choice to one that was a client of the proponent. However, the proponent testified that he made no recommendations regarding the decedent’s testamentary plan, but tried to persuade her to choose another executor. In addition, the record demonstrated that every time the decedent met with the proponent regarding her estate plan, she was not accompanied by anyone. In view of these facts, the Court held that the Objectants failed to meet their burden in connection with their allegations of undue influence (see Matter of Feller, supra).
Interestingly enough, there was no discussion of a confidential relationship between the decedent and proponent in this case, and thus, the burden of proof did not shift. After all, an attorney-client relationship often gives rise to a confidential relationship, and a consequential presumption of undue influence (see e.g., Weber v Burman, 22 Misc 3d 1104[A] [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2008]; Estate of Olson, 5/16/2006 NYLJ 33 [col 4] [Sur Ct, Richmond County]). Perhaps this was not considered because the attorney-draftsman was not a beneficiary, but I would submit that such a relationship is arguably relevant here, in light of the allegations.
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...Probate of a Lost Will
Every effort should be made to preserve an original will, assuming it is expected that the will may be offered for probate. If an original will is lost, however, the testator’s plan will not necessarily be frustrated.
Pursuant to SCPA 1407, a lost will may be admitted to probate when three conditions are met: “(1) it is established that the will has not been revoked, (2) execution of the will is proved in the manner required for the probate of an existing will, and (3) all provisions of the will are clearly and distinctly proved by each of at least two credible witnesses or by a copy or draft of the will proved to be true and complete.” The third requirement is often met by the production of a photocopy of the original will (see Estate of Tendler, 4/9/2009 NYLJ 42 [col 5] [Sur Ct, New York County]; Estate of Koontz, 4/8/2009 NYLJ 35 [col 5] [Sur Ct, New York County])
A will that is “shown to have existed” and was in the testator’s possession at the time of his or her death is presumed destroyed and thus revoked (see In re Evans, 264 AD2d 482 [2d Dept 1999]). This presumption is rebuttable, however, by satisfaction of the aforementioned statutory requirements (In re Demetriou, 48 AD3d 463 [2d Dept 2008]). In the event that the will were not in the testator’s possession at the time of his or her death, no presumption of revocation exists. Thus, if the attorney-draftsman retains the original will and it is ultimately lost or destroyed, the proponent may more easily prove that there was no revocation.
Consider the facts in Estate of Raymond, 3/25/2009 NYLJ 35 (col 3) (Sur Ct, Bronx County). There, the decedent’s original will had been maintained in the office of the attorney-draftsman. The attorney’s office was damaged following the July 2007 Manhattan steam pipe explosion, and the City of New York Department of Health ordered the destruction of all documents that had been stored there. The testator never executed another will, and upon his death, a conformed copy of the destroyed will was offered for probate. Noting that no rebuttable presumption of revocation existed because the original will was not in the testator’s possession, the court was satisfied that all three prongs of SCPA 1407 were met. It was held that the will would be admitted to probate.
Similar circumstances were presented in Estate of Castiglione, 40 AD3d 1227 (3d Dept 2007). The attorney-draftsman submitted an affidavit in support of probating a photocopy of the will, stating that the original had been kept with him, but that it had been lost when his office relocated. The attorney-draftsman of the decedent’s codicil corroborated this evidence, and further confirmed that the decedent had believed his will was still in existence upon executing his codicil. The Appellate Division was satisfied that the evidence presented satisfied SCPA 1407, and dismissed allegations that the will was invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Order directing the probate of the will was therefore affirmed.
For a more in depth discussion of probating lost wills, see Necessary Requirements to Successfully Probate a Lost Will, Nassau Lawyer, November 1, 2008.
The Due Execution of Wills
The due execution of a will requires that the elements of EPTL 3-2.1 be complied with before the instrument is admitted to probate. However, only substantial compliance with the provisions of the statute need be shown in order for due execution to be found. The meaning and scope of this provision has been the subject of judicial decision in recent years as evidenced by the following opinions:
Signature at the End of the Document
The provisions of EPTL 3-2.1 require that the decedent sign a will at “the end” thereof. The meaning of this provision was discussed by the court in In re Mobley, N.Y.L.J. Mar. 20, 2009, at 35 (Sur. Ct. New York County), in which the court was presented with the issue of whether the propounded instrument should be denied probate due to the irregular order of the signatures of the testatrix and witnesses.
Specifically, after the dispositive provisions of the Will, and the appointment of the executrix, there appeared preprinted two lines intended for the date and the signature of the testatrix. Those lines, however, were blank. Below these two lines was a pre-printed attestation clause, to which the date and signature of attesting witnesses was appended. Following the attestation clause there appeared a preprinted affidavit of attesting witnesses containing the names, but not the signatures of the attesting witnesses. Rather, on one of the lines for a witness, there appeared the signature of the testatrix.
In finding that the Will had been duly executed, the court opined that a testamentary instrument can be admitted to probate even if the procedure for execution and attestation do not take place in the precise order established by statute. In this regard, the fact that the signatures of the witnesses appear before the testatrix’s signature does not invalidate a will. Further, the court held that although the testatrix did not affix her signature immediately after the dispositive provisions of the instrument, but instead after the attestation clause and the preprinted affidavit of attesting witnesses, the signature of the testatrix nevertheless appeared “at the end” of the instrument as required by the provisions of EPTL 3-2.1. Indeed, the court noted that all dispositive provisions appeared before the testatrix’s signature.
Accordingly, probate of the instrument was granted.
Post-Death Signature of Witnesses Invalidates Will
In re Estate of Lederman, N.Y.L.J., May 22, 2002, p. 19, col. 5 (Sur. Ct., New York County), two of the residuary beneficiaries moved for summary judgment denying probate to a codicil that contained a substantial pre-residuary bequest. A Will and four codicils of the decedent were offered for probate. Under the Will and three of the codicils, the decedent made some minor pre-residuary bequests and bequeathed 90% of her residuary estate to her niece and nephew, and a charitable institution. These instruments were prepared by an attorney who supervised their execution.
The contested codicil was executed approximately 10 weeks before the decedent died, and was a one -page typewritten instrument, labeled “Codicil.” Pursuant to its terms, the sum of $300,000 was left to the decedent’s caretaker. Although the decedent signed the instrument, it was witnessed by only one person, who was designated as the executrix under a provision of the penultimate codicil. The witness stated that she prepared the codicil pursuant to the decedent’s instructions, and that the decedent had informed her that the bequest was to be a bonus to her caretaker.
The individual residuary beneficiaries moved for summary judgment on the ground that the codicil had not been properly executed in accordance with the provisions of EPTL 3-2.1, since only one witness had signed the instrument. The proponent acknowledged the deficiency in the instrument, but nevertheless maintained that it could be cured by her husband, who was present in the room at the time the codicil was executed. The proponent requested that her husband sign the instrument as a witness, albeit after the decedent’s death.
The court denied the application, and granted summary judgment in the movants’ favor, finding that a witness cannot effectively subscribe a Will after the testator has died. This principle is designed to prevent fraud. Furthermore, the court found that the second attestation proposed would be unavailing since it would not occur within the thirty day period prescribed by statute.
Witness/Beneficiaries
The due execution of a Will requires that the testator affix his name or acknowledge his signature to at least two attesting witnesses. The provisions of SCPA 1404 require that at least two of the attesting witnesses to the Will be produced before the court and examined before a Will is admitted to probate. When an attesting witness is also a beneficiary under a propounded Will the question arises as to whether the Will can nevertheless be admitted to probate, given the financial interest of the beneficiary in the instrument. Under such circumstances, the law provides that a Will may be admitted to probate, but the disposition to the witness/beneficiary shall be void, if the witness’ testimony is necessary to admit the Will to probate.
The foregoing principles were recently applied in a case of apparent first impression decided by the Surrogate’s Court, New York County, in In re Estate of Wu, NYLJ, April 27, 2009, p.19. Before the court was an application by the executor of the decedent’s estate for an order directing the decedent’s brother to pay his proportionate share of estate taxes. The brother opposed the application arguing that the tax apportionment clause in the Will exonerated him from liability.
The decedent’s brother was the beneficiary of two life insurance policies on the decedent’s life, but also was one of the two attesting witnesses to the instrument. Under the circumstances, the court found that his testimony was necessary to the probate of the Will, and pursuant to the provisions of EPTL 3-3.2, declared the tax exoneration clause of the Will ineffective as to him. Specifically, the court reasoned that the provision, to the extent that it discharged an obligation of the decedent’s brother, was tantamount to a beneficial disposition to him, within the scope of the statutory dictates pertaining to witness/beneficiaries.
The court opined that while the result of its opinion was ostensibly harsh, it was not so harsh as to deprive the decedent’s brother of his inheritance, i.e. the insurance proceeds, albeit net of estate taxes. Indeed, the court noted that in most instances in which the statute is applied, the witness/beneficiary under the propounded Will is denied his entire bequest. Nevertheless, the court cautioned attorney-draftspersons utilizing a tax exoneration clause to be fully informed of the recipients of the testator’s non-probate assets in order to avoid unintended consequences.
Discovery in Probate Contests
Discovery in a contested probate proceeding is generally governed by what Surrogate’s Court practitioners call the “three/two” rule (22 NYCRR 207.27). This rule limits discovery to the “three-year period prior to the date of the propounded instrument and two years thereafter, or to the date of the decedent’s death, whichever is the shorter period” (id.). It is a “pragmatic rule" intended to prevent the abuses associated with a “runaway inquisition” or “wild goose chase” (Estate of Das, NYLJ, 5/1/2009, at 31 [Sur Ct Nassau County]).
Notwithstanding that general rule, however, the time period for discovery may be extended by the Surrogate’s Court when “special circumstances” exist, such as when “a scheme of fraud or a continuing course of conduct of undue influence” is alleged (id.). For example, in Matter of Kaufman, the objectants sought discovery with respect to the entire period of cohabitation between the proponent of the decedent’s will and the decedent, which lasted from September 1948 until the decedent’s death in April 1959 (11 AD2d 759, 759-60 [1st Dept 1960]). The objectants argued that the departure from the three/two rule was warranted because the proponent’s long relationship with the decedent gave rise to testamentary capacity and undue influence concerns (id.). Although the Surrogate’s Court denied the objectants’ motion, the Appellate Division reversed, reasoning that a full examination of the decedent’s relationship with the proponent was warranted (id.).
Is Justice Delayed Justice Denied?
Recent developments in the Martin Tankleff murder case have captivated court observers in New York and attracted the attention of national news media outlets. For the most part, the observers have focused their attention on issues of criminal law, like newly-discovered evidence and the reliability of allegedly false confessions. Yet, the case also has potential trusts and estates-related consequences.
This much we know: Mr. Tankleff’s parents were killed on September 7, 1988 (see People v Tankleff, 49 A.D.3d 160, 162-64 [2d Dep’t 2007]). After an investigation, the police arrested Mr. Tankleff for murdering his parents, prosecutors tried him for the murders, and a Suffolk County jury convicted him of the offenses (id.). In the days, months, and years that followed, Mr. Tankleff and his legal team launched an exhaustive campaign to overturn his convictions on the basis of newly-discovered evidence, which Mr. Tankleff asserted established his innocence (id.). The Appellate Division, Second Department, issued an Order vacating Mr. Tankleff’s judgments of conviction in December 2007, id. at 183, and prosecutors elected against retrying Mr. Tankleff in June 2008 (see Luis Perez, “AG won’t retry Tankleff – or any other suspects,” Newsday, June 30, 2008).
