While the removal of a fiduciary has long been the subject of Surrogate’s Court opinions, it is not often that the Appellate Division weighs in on the issue. However, in Matter of Epstein, the Second Department did just that, and issued an opinion that serves as an important guidepost for the kind of conduct that warrants removal. Ilene Cooper discusses the decision in our latest post.
Continue Reading Appellate Division Addresses the Removal of a Fiduciary

When thinking of the Surrogate’s Court, jurisdiction over eviction proceedings does not normally come to mind. Yet, over the past 18 months, the Surrogates of New York and Bronx counties have found cause to order an eviction from estate or trust property in order to facilitate its sale. Ilene Cooper discusses those cases in our latest post.
Continue Reading The Remedy of Eviction in the Surrogate’s Court

All too often co-fiduciaries do not see eye to eye in the administration of an estate or trust. They can usually work through their disagreements, but when they cannot, and their arguing and finger pointing have reached a level where their administration reaches a stand-still, one fiduciary might seek to remove his co-executor or co-trustee. Hillary Frommer discusses a recent decision addressing this issue in our latest post.
Continue Reading Can’t We All Just Get Along: When Non-Cooperation Leads to Removal

One of the most fundamental duties of a fiduciary is the duty of loyalty. That is, every fiduciary must administer the estate or trust subject to his or her stewardship solely in the interests of the beneficiaries. If a fiduciary engages in self-dealing, that duty is breached. In Matter of Smith, the Surrogate’s Court, Albany County, recently addressed the liability attendant to fiduciary self-dealing . Ilene Cooper discusses the decision in our latest post.
Continue Reading Fiduciary Self-Dealing

My colleagues have written on the enforceability of in terrorem clauses, and the courts continue to confront challenges in reconciling the testator’s intent to impose an in terrorem condition with the rights of beneficiaries to challenge the conduct of their fiduciary. The New York County Surrogate’s Court’s recent decision in Matter of Merenstein provides further