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 guidance to practitioners in assessing the kind of conduct that will trigger an in terrorem clause. It illustrates that the courts, in construing broad in terrorem provisions, will draw a distinction between conduct aimed at challenging the conduct of an executor and conduct aimed at nullifying a testator’s choice of executor.

In Merenstein, the decedent bequeathed his estate to his two daughters. His daughter Ilene was favored under the will – – she received 73% of the decedent’s residuary estate and was nominated the sole executor. His daughter Emma received 27% of the decedent’s residuary estate. The in terrorem clause in Merenstein provided as follows:

If any person in any manner, directly or indirectly, challenges the validity or adequacy of any bequest or devise to him or her in this Will, makes any other demand or claim against my estate, becomes a party to any proceeding to set aside, interfere with or modify any provision of this Will or of any trust established by me, or offers any objections to the probate hereof, such person and all of his or her descendants shall be deemed to have predeceased me, and accordingly they shall have no interest in this Will.

Decedent’s will was admitted to probate and Ilene was appointed executor without objection.

Emma brought a proceeding asking the court whether certain contemplated conduct on her part would trigger a forfeiture of her beneficial interest under the in terrorem clause. Her first question was whether a petition to compel the executor to account, and a subsequent petition to remove the executor in the event that the executor disregarded a court order to account, would trigger the in terrorem clause. That was easy. The court held, consistent with well-settled law, that a beneficiary will not trigger an in terrorem clause by demanding an accounting of an executor, by objecting to an executor’s accounting, or by seeking removal of the executor in the event of the executor’s failure to comply with an order to account.

Emma also asked whether she would trigger the in terrorem clause by petitioning for limited letters of administration giving her the authority to conduct an investigation into whether Ilene had fraudulently used the decedent’s credit card during the decedent’s life. This was another easy one. Consistent with well-settled law, the court held that a petition for the issuance of limited letters to pursue an investigation into whether there are assets of the estate in the possession of others, including someone who is also a fiduciary, does not seek to challenge the validity of the will or any of its provisions. The filing of such a petition and even a subsequent discovery or turnover proceeding would not cause the beneficiary to forfeit her benefits under the will.

The court drew a line however, when Emma asked whether filing a petition to suspend Ilene’s letters testamentary during the investigation into the credit card charges would trigger a forfeiture under the in terrorem provision. Emma claimed that such an order of suspension was necessary to prevent Ilene from interfering with her investigation as limited administrator. The court held that such an application would trigger the in terrorem clause. Such conduct, according to the court, would constitute an attack on the decedent’s choice of fiduciary. The court explained:

Seeking the suspension of Ilene’s letters pending any investigation that Emma may pursue and in the absence of any allegation of misconduct by Ilene in her fiduciary capacity is akin to a challenge to the testator’s choice of fiduciary as established under the will. The in terrorem clause in decedent’s will disinherits a beneficiary who commences a proceeding to set aside any of the provisions of the will, and therefore, the filing of this type of petition, which does not fall within the safe harbor provisions of EPTL 3-3.5 (b), would result in forfeiture in this case

Finally, Emma asked the court whether a petition to remove Ilene as executor in the event that Ilene was determined to have engaged in improper conduct with respect to the credit card charges would trigger the in terrorem clause.   The court declined to rule on that question. It did however, point out that the alleged credit card charges occurred while the decedent was still alive, and earlier in the decision, cited to Matter of Cohn, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department.

In the Cohn estate, the courts confirmed that public policy will bar the application of an in terrorem clause where a beneficiary seeks removal of an executor based on allegations of the executor’s misconduct in their capacity as executor, but will not bar the application of an in terrorem clause where a beneficiary seeks to remove or supplant an executor based on some other ostensible basis that constitutes an attack on the testator’s choice of fiduciary, or on the powers and authority given to the fiduciary by the testator. There, the courts recognized that an attempt to displace the testator’s chosen executors based on the allegation that such executors had failed to fully inform the testator of the compensation that they would receive as executors was simply an attack on the testator’s choice of fiduciary that would trigger an in terrorem clause similar to the in terrorem provision in Merenstein.

The court in Merenstein, like the courts in the Cohn estate, recognized that fidelity to a testator’s intent warrants a fact-sensitive inquiry in enforcing terrorem clauses. Based on Merenstein and Cohn, it is clear that a beneficiary would be hard-pressed to claim that a limited administrator should supplant an executor in representing the estate in a litigation where the executor has no conflict, has not failed to act, and has not engaged in misconduct as executor, without triggering an in terrorem provision like that in Merenstein. Similarly, a beneficiary should understand that petitioning for a limited administrator to perform some estate administration task on the mere allegation that the executor has bias or hostility towards the beneficiary because of some events that occurred between the beneficiary and executor while the decedent was still alive is sure to be considered a challenge to the testator’s choice of fiduciary. Such a challenge will trigger an in terrorem clause like that in Merenstein. When faced with an in terrorem provision like that in Merenstein, a beneficiary must consider whether it is challenging the conduct of the fiduciary, or attacking the decedent’s choice of fiduciary. There is a difference, and it could mean a forfeiture.

Although exoneration clauses in a testamentary trust will not, as a matter of public policy, absolve a trustee of liability for failure to exercise reasonable care, diligence and prudence (EPTL §11-1.7(a)(1)), there is no comparable statutory provision with respect to exoneration clauses in lifetime trusts. Nevertheless, the court, in Matter of Accounting of Tydings, NYLJ, July 7, 2011, at p. 26 (Sur Ct, Bronx County), found reason, despite the exoneration clause in the inter vivos trust instrument, to hold the trustee liable.

In Tydings, the court had the opportunity to opine on the effect of the exoneration clause in the subject trust, commissions, and the legal fees incurred by the petitioner and objectant. The objectant in the proceeding was the grantor and income beneficiary of the trust, with a discretionary interest in the principal. The ultimate remainderman of the trust was the grantor’s infant son.

With regard to the issue of the exoneration clause, the trust instrument authorized, inter alia, the trustee to retain an original investment for any length of time without liability for such retention, and to act on behalf of the trust and herself or another entity with regard to any transaction in which the trustee and the trust or the other entity had an interest. The trust also provided that the trustee would not be responsible for any loss to the trust unless such loss resulted from bad faith or fraud on the part of the trustee, and that the trustee would not be disqualified from acting because the trustee held an interest in any property or entity in which the trust also held an interest. The court noted that several of the objections raised in the proceeding hinged, inter alia, on the enforceability of this exoneration clause.

To this extent, the court opined that despite the absence of a statute applicable to exoneration clauses contained in lifetime trusts (cf. EPTL 11-1.7(a)(1)), the enforceability of such clauses were nevertheless subject to certain defined limitations. For instance, the court observed that a trustee of a lifetime trust who is guilty of wrongful negligence, impermissible self-dealing, bad faith or reckless indifference to the interests of the beneficiaries will not be shielded from liability by an exoneration clause. Moreover, when an attorney, named as trustee, is the draftsperson of the instrument containing an exoneration clause, the clause limiting the trustee’s liability to bad faith acts is void as against public policy. Further, the court noted that while improper self-dealing will not come under the umbrella of an exoneration clause, the rule of undivided loyalty due from a trustee may be relaxed by appropriate language in the trust instrument which directly or indirectly recognizes the trustee may be in a position of conflict with the trust.

Within this context, the court held that the petitioner would not be liable with respect to an interest-free loan that pre-existed the creation of the trust and that had been transferred into the trust by the grantor. On the other hand, the court found the petitioner liable for interest-free loans made by the trust subsequent to the inception of her stewardship. To this extent, the court concluded that petitioner’s conduct exhibited a complete indifference to the best interests of the objectant, mandating that she be surcharged for the income lost on the loan transactions.

Additionally, the court found that the exoneration clause in the instrument did not bar the objectant from recovering lost profits from the trustee attributable to her use of trust funds, without consideration, to benefit an entity in which she was personally interested.

As to the balance of the objections, the court concluded that the objectant was either estopped from raising the issues, or did not warrant the imposition of a surcharge.

With respect to the issue of commissions, the court opined that while not every surcharge warrants a denial of commissions, when the fiduciary has engaged in conduct evidencing bad faith, a complete indifference to his/her duties and responsibilities, or some act of malfeasance or misfeasance, commissions will be denied. Based on the record, the court found that the petitioner was lax with regard to managing the financial aspects of the trust. Indeed, although the court concluded that the petitioner had not acted in bad faith, it, nevertheless, held, particularly based on the interest-free loans that had been made, that she had exhibited indifference to her duties, and, accordingly, sufficient misfeasance to warrant a denial of commissions. Further, the court denied the petitioner annual commissions on the grounds that she had failed to establish that she had furnished the objectant with an annual statement pursuant to the provisions of SCPA 2309, that the objectant had waived her right to receive the statement, or that there was sufficient income retained by the trust in any particular year from which she could pay herself income commissions.

Finally, with regard to the issue of legal fees, the court held, in the exercise of discretion, that the petitioner and the objectant should each, individually, bear responsibility for their legal fees and expenses. The court observed that while many of the objections to the petitioner’s account had not been sustained, the petitioner could not seek payment of fees from the trust for defending objections for which she was surcharged. Moreover, the court opined that a strong case could be made for holding the petitioner responsible for the expert witness fees incurred by the objectant in proving petitioner’s liability in connection with the transactions for which she was surcharged. On the other hand, the court noted that the objectant vigorously pursued, and caused the petitioner to defend, numerous objections of which she was aware and had approved prior to their occurrence. Accordingly, under all the circumstances, the court determined it would be most equitable to have the petitioner and the objectant to personally satisfy their own legal fees in connection with the proceeding.

Over the past several months, the Appellate courts have been actively engaged in determining issues pertinent to the field of trusts and estates and providing guidance to the Surrogate’s Court practitioner. The following is a synopsis of but a few of the decisions rendered.

Discovery Proceedings

In Matter of Delgatto, 2011 NY Slip Op 02667, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Johnson, S.), which denied the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment in a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 to recover real property. The petitioner, who was the administrator cta of the estate, alleged that the decedent transferred the subject property to a revocable trust for the benefit of his caregiver, as a result of undue influence. The Court noted that several of the exhibits submitted by the petitioner were not in admissible form, i.e. unsigned and unattested transcripts, and thus could not be utilized in support of the motion. Further, the Court opined that the admissible evidence submitted by the petitioner failed to establish the petitioner’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

The Elective Share

On April 26, 2011, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Johnson, S.), which granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment determining her right to an elective share of the decedent’s estate. In Matter of Atiram, 2011 NY Slip Op 03593, the Court found that the petitioner had established that she married the decedent in 1952 and that they remained legally married until the date of the decedent’s death. The Court concluded that the objectant had failed to raise any triable issue of fact as to whether the petitioner was disqualified on the grounds of abandonment, or equitably estopped from taking an elective share.

Compulsory Accounting

In Matter of Faggen, 2011 NY Slip Op 01413, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed an order of the Surrogate’s Court, New York Count (Webber, S.), which dismissed a petition for a compulsory accounting by the co-fiduciaries of the estate of the decedent. The record revealed that the decedent was the fiduciary of the estate of her late husband, who was the executor of the estate which was the subject of the proceeding. The Court held that a compulsory proceeding by fiduciaries thrice removed from the subject estate was not authorized by the provisions of SCPA 2207.

Proceeding Against a Fiduciary to Recover Property

Before the Appellate Division, Third Department in Matter of Curtis, 2011 NY Slip Op 027773, was an appeal from an order and decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Rensselaer County (Hummel, S.), which partially granted the petitioner’s application to compel the delivery of property from the fiduciary, and from a decree of that court which judicially settled the fiduciary’s accounting. The parties were the decedent’s daughters and co-executors of her estate. Prior to the decedent’s death, the decedent moved in with one of her daughters, who became her attorney-in-fact. Acting in this capacity, the daughter transferred assets of the decedent into her name.

After the decedent’s death, the decedent’s other daughter compelled her sister to account as attorney-in-fact and as co-executor of the estate. Both accountings were submitted and objections were filed. At the bench trial, the petitioner only pursued objections to the respondent’s accounting as attorney-in-fact, alleging that the transfers of assets by the decedent were the result of self -dealing and breach of fiduciary duty. The Surrogate’s Court disagreed, concluding that the respondent’s actions were undertaken with the express consent of the decedent, who was found competent at the time. The Appellate Division affirmed.

The Court held that while there was a presumption that the services provided by respondent’s husband in connection with the sale of certain realty were gratuitous in nature, that presumption was sufficiently rebutted by the testimony of the respondent and her husband that the decedent agreed to pay for her son-in-law’s services. To this extent, the Court deferred to the Surrogate’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility, and expressly noted that the petitioner put forth no evidence to contradict the evidence presented.

Moreover, the Court found that the transfer of the decedent’s investment account to the respondent, and respondent’s inclusion as a mortgagee upon the sale of the decedent’s home constituted valid gifts, albeit made by the respondent as the decedent’s attorney-in-fact. The Court relied on the language of the power of attorney which authorized the making of the gifts in issue, as well as the testimony of the respondent who stated that the decedent was present when the subject transactions occurred.

 

The newly elected Surrogate for Nassau County, Edward W. McCarty III, recently issued a decision in what appears to be a gut-wrenching case involving an infant decedent. In the Estate of Jessica Fernandes, Surrogate McCarty attempts to get to the bottom of two commonly encountered issues in an infant decedent’s estate, that is 1) who should serve as administrator of the decedent’s estate; and 2) whether one of the decedent’s parents should be barred from receiving estate assets. 

In most estates, the answer to the question of who will serve as fiduciary is straightforward. Where a decedent dies having executed a last will and testament, the will identifies the nominated executor (or co-executors). The nominated executor will serve unless the Court finds that he or she is ineligible to serve for the reasons set forth in SCPA § 707. Every person interested in the estate has the opportunity, pursuant to SCPA § 709, to object to the appointment of the nominated executor. Where a person dies intestate, a person interested in the estate may object to the appointment of an administrator on one or more of the grounds set forth in SCPA § 707Article 10 of the SCPA governs the order of priority of who is entitled to serve as an administrator of an intestate estate. 

In Fernandes, the decedent was a 12 year-old girl who succumbed to respiratory failure. She had been incapacitated since birth, and her mother had been appointed her personal needs guardian, as well as co-guardian of her property along with an attorney, pursuant to Article 81 of the New York Mental Hygiene Law. The decedent had recovered in excess of $3.5 million in the settlement of a medical malpractice action.   All else being equal, the decedent’s mother and father have equal priority to serve as administrator of her estate pursuant to SCPA § 1001, and the Court may appoint, in its discretion, one or both of them.

Following the decedent’s death, her mother petitioned for letters of administration and requested that the decedent’s father be disqualified, pursuant to EPTL § 4-1.4, from taking an intestate share of decedent’s estate on the basis of his alleged failure to provide for, and abandonment of, the decedent. The decedent’s father struck back, denying that he had abandoned the decedent, objecting to the decedent’s mother’s appointment as administrator of the decedent’s estate pursuant to SCPA § 707 on the grounds that the decedent’s mother had engaged in fraud and dishonesty, and cross-petitioning for letters of administration. The decedent’s mother appears to have also alleged that the decedent’s father is a non-domiciliary alien and thus ineligible to serve as administrator pursuant to SCPA § 707 (1) (c), and that he cannot read or write in English, and that the Court should thus, in its discretion, find him ineligible to serve pursuant to SCPA § 707 (2). The decedent’s mother also alleged that decedent’s father’s open hostility to her rendered him ineligible to serve. 

Judge McCarty’s decision indicates that he is poised to address the factual allegations that the parties have made. He explained that summary judgment was inappropriate; the papers before him left several issues of fact to be resolved at a hearing (the hearing may have already been held). Aside from untangling the issue of the decedent’s father’s immigration status, it seems that the Surrogate will be faced with determining whether each of the decedent’s parents can read and write in the English language, and, if not, whether this should affect their ability to serve. In this inquiry, he may be informed by a recent decision from the Surrogate’s Court, New York County, Matter of Torbibio.   

Moreover, while dishonesty is one of the grounds set forth in SCPA § 707 (e) as a basis to render someone ineligible to receive letters, dishonesty as contemplated by the statute is not dishonesty in answering questions such as “how big was that fish that you caught last fall?” but, as the First Department recently explained, dishonesty in money matters from which a reasonable apprehension may be entertained that the funds of the estate would not be safe in the hands of the contemplated fiduciary.   As for the decedent’s mother’s claim that the decedent’s father’s hostility renders him ineligible, as countless Surrogate’s Court practitioners have explained to their clients, mere hostility is simply not enough. It is well-settled that an individual will only be barred from being appointed fiduciary where friction or hostility interferes with the proper administration of the estate, and future cooperation is unlikely. 

Barring a settlement, it appears that the Court will reach the second issue, whether the decedent’s father should be disqualified from sharing in the decedent’s estate, at the close of discovery. His decision contains a granular analysis of disputes among the parties as to documentary discovery – the kind of analysis that is helpful to lawyers when they get down to the task of drafting demands for documents.       

Jurisdictions within the United States have generally rejected the British concept of the prevailing party’s shifting the burden of litigation expenses to the losing party. Instead, we follow what is commonly known as the American Rule, under which each party typically bears the burden of his own legal fees, win or lose. However, like most other rules we face in the legal profession, certain circumstances are considered exceptions. Surrogate Glen of New York County recently addressed the question of whether a particular situation rose to the level of such an exception in Matter of Lasdon, 11/19/10 NYLJ 25 (Sur Ct, New York County).

In Lasdon, objectants to two trust accountings sought leave to reargue three of the Court’s rulings in its June decision that addressed the conduct of one of the co-trustees, and resulted in a surcharge. At the core of the contested accounting was the co-trustee’s delay in making the final distribution upon each trust’s termination, which resulted in trust assets declining in value. His delay was intentional, attributable to his desire to resolve certain issues pertaining to other family trusts with his sister and co-trustee, prior to making the distribution.  

In seeking reargument, objectants contended that the Court erred in denying their requests that (1) the co-trustee be barred from receiving his attorneys’ fees from the trust; (2) that the co-trustee be disallowed commissions; and (3) that the co-trustee be directed to absorb the objectants’ legal fees. Addressing the objectants’ motion, the Court explained that it did not misapprehend the law or overlook the facts in determining that the surcharged co-trustee is entitled to annual commissions and to have his legal fees and costs paid by the trusts. Nonetheless, Surrogate Glen noted that the issue that objectants raised in connection with the co-trustee’s payment of their legal fees warranted further discussion.

Although New York courts generally follow the American Rule, Surrogate Glen explained there are some exceptions. Hence, a prevailing party’s litigation costs may be shifted to the loser in situations where there is a statutory or contractual provision that when strictly construed, supports such a shift. Further, and most relevant here, a prevailing party’s legal expenses may be shifted when the losing party is a fiduciary who has been surcharged for causing harm to his estate or trust (Matter of Lasdon, 11/19/10 NYLJ 25 [Sur Ct, New York County], citing Matter of Garvin, 256 NY 518 [1931]; Matter of Hidden, 243 NY 499 [1926]; Matter of Marsh, 265 AD2d 253 [1st Dept 1999]). 

The court referred to the Court of Appeals’ holding in the seminal case of Matter of Hidden, supra, as instructive. There, it was determined that the estate of an incompetent suffered a loss as “direct results of wrong found” on the part of her committee.   Accordingly, the Court held that the expenses of litigating to protect the estate’s interests were “amounts ‘for which the delinquent fiduciary may be held accountable’” (Matter of Lasdon, supra, at *5 quoting Matter of Hidden, 243 NY 499 [1926]).

The Surrogate went on to explain that the Hidden decision itself gave no indication that every surcharged fiduciary should pay the legal expenses of every objectant, nor have the cases that followed it. Rather, Surrogate Glen interpreted Hidden and its descendant line of cases as warranting exceptions to the American Rule when fiduciaries enrich themselves “at the expense of the funds with which they have been entrusted” (id. at *6), or, in at least one case that did not involve bad faith, where the fiduciary’s actions caused “manifest . . . deficiencies in the administration of the estate” (id. quoting Matter of Campbell, 134 Misc 2d 960 [Sur Ct, Columbia County 1987], aff’d 138 AD2d 827 [3d Dept 1988]).

Applying the foregoing rationale to Lasdon, the court noted that while the co-trustee had been surcharged for his misconduct, there had been no self-dealing. Further, applying the reasoning of Campbell, the court stated that the Lasdon co-trustee’s delaying in the final distribution “[did] not unequivocally bespeak a malign or self-serving purpose” (Matter of Lasdon at *8). Consequently, it held that the facts did not warrant the imposition of the objectants’ litigation expenses upon the surcharged co-trustee.

It appears that the rationale for applying the exception to the American Rule in fiduciary situations is extremely similar to that applied when analyzing whether a fiduciary’s misconduct is so egregious as to result in his individual responsibility for his own legal fees. Indeed, if a fiduciary’s malfeasance rises to the level contemplated by Hidden and he must individually compensate the prevailing party for his litigation expenses, why should the cost of defending his improper actions be borne by the trust or estate that he was entrusted to serve? I would submit that in the vast majority of cases it should not. Thus, litigators should keep this exception to the American Rule in mind. Perhaps requests that a fiduciary be individually charged with his legal expenses when appropriate should routinely be coupled with requests to shift to the fiduciary the litigation costs of the prevailing objectant as well.

Beneficiaries often question the circumstances under which a trustee or executor’s legal fees are chargeable against their inheritance, especially when those fees are incurred in defending the fiduciary’s alleged misconduct. 

The law provides that fiduciaries who are guilty of a breach often remain entitled to have their litigation costs covered by the estate or trust for which they serve (see Estate of Casey, 6/21/93 NYLJ 33 [col 6][Sur Ct, Westchester County]; Matter of Kettle, 73 AD2d 786 [4th Dept 1979]). Although Surrogate’s Courts have the discretion to charge legal fees against the fiduciary personally “as an expense caused by their wrong”, these determinations are generally limited to cases where the court finds an act of bad faith (see Matter of Hidden, 243 NY 499 [1926]). It is therefore logical that the legal fees of a fiduciary who is not guilty of any misconduct are chargeable to the estate or trust. This was the case in Matter of Hyde, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 02491(3d Dept 2009). There, however, the beneficiaries who had not contested the trustees’ accounting sought to have the trustees’ litigation costs borne solely by the shares of the objecting parties. 

Matter of Hyde dealt with two trusts, the Hyde Trust and the Cunningham Trust, of which two families, the Renz family and the Whitney family, were beneficiaries. Specifically, the Hyde Trust provided that the Hyde grandchildren, Louis Whitney (“Whitney”) and Mary W. Renz (“Renz”), were each to receive equal shares of trust income during their respective lifetimes. Upon the death of either beneficiary, the principal of the deceased beneficiary’s share was to be distributed to each of Hyde’s great-grandchildren. Whitney died in January 2008, providing each of Hyde’s five great-grandchildren with a one-fifth interest in the remaining principal of Whitney’s half.

The Cunningham Trust also provided income for Whitney and Renz, each receiving a one-sixth interest therein, with a contingent remainder of one-sixth of the principal upon termination of the trust if the beneficiary were still living.In 2001, the trustees of the Hyde Trust commenced a proceeding for an intermediate accounting. Thereafter, in 2003, the trustees of the Cunningham Trust commenced a proceeding to settle their intermediate accounts. The Whitney children filed objections to each accounting, seeking to deny trustees’ commissions and to surcharge for failure to diversify investments. The Warren County Surrogate’s Court dismissed the objections, and said dismissal was affirmed on appeal.

Because the objections and subsequent trial were pursued solely by the Whitney children, the Renz children sought to charge only the Whitney portion of the trust with legal fees in connection with the defense of said objections. The Surrogate denied the motion, and charged each of the trusts as a whole with all litigation expenses. 

SCPA 2110[1] authorizes the Surrogate to fix litigation costs in connection with legal services provided to a fiduciary. In addition, pursuant to SCPA 2110[2], the Surrogate may “direct payment therefor from the estate generally or from the funds in the hands of the fiduciary belonging to any legatee, devisee or person interested.” Here, the Surrogate charged the trusts as a whole with the attorneys’ fees incurred defending in both accounting proceedings, despite the nonparticipation of the Renz beneficiaries.  The Third Department affirmed.

In upholding the Warren County Surrogate’s decision, the Appellate Division relied on both SCPA 2110, and the Court of Appeals holding in Matter of Dillon, 28 NY2d 597 (1971). Dillon provides that “SCPA 2110 does not authorize payment for legal services rendered a party to be charged against the share of other individual parties” (see Matter of Dillon, 28 NY2d 597, 599). The Renz beneficiaries’ attempt to distinguish Dillon was without avail.

 

 

This post concerns a decision issued by a Supreme Court Justice in a complex corporate dissolution proceeding. It highlights the importance of familiarity with estate practice, even if you never plan to step foot into a Surrogate’s Court.

In Matter of Pappas v Corifan Enterprises Ltd., NYLJ 2/19/09 (Sup. Ct. Kings County 2009), the issue was whether the Petitioner — the surviving spouse of the decedent — had standing to petition for dissolution of two closely held corporations. Respondent argued that the decedent — and, thus, the Petitioner — lacked the requisite 20 percent ownership interest in the corporations. He argued that he was the sole owner of the corporations. After a hearing limited to the issue of standing, at which the court heard 14 witnesses testify over eight days and admitted 48 documents into evidence, the court determined that the Petitioner met her burden of demonstrating an ownership interest in one corporation, but not the other.

The substantive legal aspects of the decision are beyond the scope of this post (although an article published by my colleague, Peter Mahler, on his New York Business Divorce blog, contains an excellent discussion of the same).  What should be of interest to the trust and estate litigator is the evidence the court analyzed in reaching its determination.

Continue Reading Court Considers Estate Planning Documents In Deciding Corporate Dispute