Many estate practitioners are familiar with litigated matters in which a charity interested in the proceeding is cited, as is the Attorney General, and both the Attorney General and private counsel for the charity appear in the proceeding. In such cases, both the Attorney General and the charity’s counsel represent the charity (although as a practical matter, since the charity has private counsel, the Attorney General may take a less pronounced role in the litigation, electing instead to defer to the charity’s chosen counsel).  What happens, however, when the status and identity of the charitable beneficiary is less than certain?  That was precisely the situation facing the New York County Surrogate’s Court in the probate contest involving the much-publicized estate of Huguette Clark.

Huguette Clark died on May 24, 2011, leaving a Last Will and Testament dated April 19, 2005, which disinherited her family.  However, just six weeks earlier, on March 7, 2005, Huguette executed a will naming her family as residuary beneficiaries.

Article FOURTH of the propounded will directed that the nominated executors form a private foundation to be named the Bellosguardo Foundation and “take all necessary steps to organize, operated (sic) and qualify said foundation as an educational organization, as defined by Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, for the primary purpose of fostering and promoting the Arts.”

In June, 2011, a bare two weeks after Huguette died, and notwithstanding that the propounded will had not been admitted to probate, three entities called the Bellosguardo Foundation were formed — one in California, one in Delaware, and one in New York.

Ultimately, members of Huguette Clark’s family, represented by Farrell Fritz, filed objections to probate.  The New York State Attorney General appeared in the now-contested probate proceeding to represent the charitable interests under the will.  In addition, a private law firm filed a Notice of Appearance in the proceeding, purporting to appear on behalf of an entity called the “Bellosguardo Foundation” (there was no indication which foundation — i.e., the California, Delaware, or New York foundations — the law firm purported to represent).

The probate proceeding was scheduled for trial in September 2013.  There were numerous motions submitted by the various parties in the months preceding the trial.  While most of those motions were evidentiary in nature, one, brought by Farrell Fritz on behalf of the Clark family, sought to strike the private law firm’s Notice of Appearance filed on behalf of the so-called “Bellosguardo Foundation.”  The family took the position that the foundation was not the foundation referenced in the will and, therefore, had no standing to participate in the trial.  Farrell Fritz argued on behalf of the family that the propounded will’s direction regarding the formation of a foundation had no legal effect prior to the admission of the will to probate.  Although the propounded will directed that the executors form a foundation, there were no executors prior to the will’s admission to probate, and, thus, the foundation referenced in the propounded will did not, and could not, exist prior to probate.  That a person incorporated an entity with the same name as the foundation to be formed in the event the propounded will were admitted to probate, and then caused that entity to appear in the probate proceeding, did not make the entity the “Bellosguardo Foundation” to be formed under the will.

Nor was it necessary to permit the foundation to participate in the proceeding, as the charitable interest under the propounded will was being adequately represented by the Attorney-General, who “has the statutory power and duty to represent the beneficiaries of any disposition for charitable purposes (EPTL 8-1.1(f); other cites omitted)” (Alco Gravure Inc. et al. v. The Knapp Foundation, 64 NY2d 458, 465 [1985]).  Moreover, while a charitable beneficiary has standing to participate in a litigated proceeding in which it is interested, the Attorney General’s standing to represent a charitable interest is exclusive where the charity’s status is indefinite or uncertain, or, to express it differently, where the charity is “not within a class of potential beneficiaries that is ‘sharply defined and limited in number’ (Alco Gravure, 64 NY2d at 465).”  (Matter of Rosenthal, [Helmsley Charitable Trust], 99 AD3d 573 [1st Dept 2012]).

Both the Public Administrator of New York County and the Attorney General’s office supported the Clark family’s motion. On the eve of the trial, Surrogate Anderson rendered her decision, granting the motion.  The Surrogate noted that, “[t]he Attorney General, who is charged under the Estate’s Powers and Trusts Law § 8-1.4(e)(2) with representing all charitable interests under the subject will, has been demonstratively adequate and diligent in representing the interests of the Bellosguardo Foundation to be formed.  Further, the Attorney General has exclusive standing to represent a beneficiary of a disposition for charitable purposes when such beneficiary is indefinite or uncertain (EPTL §8-1.1(f))” (Estate of Huguette M. Clark, NYLJ 9/27/13, p. 25, col. 1. [Sur Ct, New York County]).

Subsequently, the parties in the litigation were able to settle the contest.  Thereafter, the true Bellosguardo Foundation was formed, as mandated by the Propounded Will as admitted to probate by the Surrogate.

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.