Trusts

Subscribe to Trusts via RSS
Piles,Judicial,Court,Files,And,Judge,Gavel

It is a rare day that the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court, deals with trust and estate matters, let alone something as granular as the validity of an in terrorem clause.  But speaketh they did, on April 17, 2025, in a lengthy opinion with a 13-page dissent to boot (Carlson v. Colangelo, 2025 NY Slip Op 02264). 

In this case, the Decedent never married but he was survived by a romantic partner, Kristine M. Carlson (“Carlson”), and by his daughter Crissy Colangelo (“Colangelo”), whose mother was a prior romantic partner of the Decedent.  The Decedent executed a pour-over Will and Revocable Trust the month before he died.  Under the Trust, the Decedent left his residence in Cortlandt Manor, New York to Carlson and his “interest” in an LLC which owned real estate to Colangelo with a statement that “it is Grantor’s sincere wish and desire that Crissy Colangelo provide a stream of income, not to exceed the sum of $350,000 in total, to Kristine M. Carlson.”  The Decedent named Colangelo as Trustee.

Both instruments contained in terrorem clauses.  The Trust clause provided:

In the event that any heir, distributee, beneficiary…shall contest any aspect of this Trust, or the distribution of the Grantor’s assets pursuant to his Last Will, inter vivos Trust agreement, beneficiary designations or non-probate beneficiary designations, or shall attempt to set aside, nullify, contest or void the distributions thereof in any way …

then the challenger would forfeit benefits under the instrument. 

After a number of failed attempts to resolve issues between them, Carlson commenced an action in Supreme Court seeking to compel Colangelo to distribute the residence to her, a declaration that Carlson was a pre-mortem 50% owner of the LLC, a direction that Carlson is entitled to the $350,000 income stream from the LLC, an accounting for the LLC, and punitive damages. Continue Reading Lengthy Opinion Delivered Regarding In Terrorem Clause

For trust and estate litigators, the federal court experience invariably begins – and sometimes ends — with an analysis of the probate exception to federal diversity jurisdiction.  Two recent Southern District cases examine the probate exception.  Part 1 of this blog series introduces the probate exception and discusses an “easy” case; Woitovichv. Schoenfeld.  Part 2 of this series, coming soon (hopefully), examines the tougher case of Bulgariv. Bulgari. Continue Reading The Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction – From Woitovich (Part 1) to Bulgari (Part 2)

It is easy to be cynical about the “pots and pans,” “tchotchkes,” and “junk” – – the property that is often divided in a contentious manner at the bitter end of an estate litigation, or sometimes forgotten after years of litigation. An ongoing dispute in one of my cases led me to reflect on a…

In Matter of Brigati, Surrogate Czygier of Suffolk County addressed an application to reform the decedent’s life insurance trust, which contained a significant amount of insurance. The instrument contained a number of terms which could cause inclusion in the decedent’s gross estate. Among other things, it provided that upon the death of the Grantor, the life insurance…

Readers may recall Eric Penzer’s previous entries regarding Leona Helmsley’s charitable trust in which she expressed a desire that its millions of dollars be used for the care and welfare of dogs. This week he addresses the New York County Surrogate’s Court’s latest decision on the issue, after animal welfare charities sought to intervene in the proceeding and vacate a prior determination that the trust assets could be distributed to any charities as the executors saw fit.
Continue Reading Surrogate: Dog Groups Barking Up The Wrong Tree

As explained by Jaclene D’Agostino in our previous entry, constructive trusts may be imposed in a variety of circumstances. However, there are numerous situations in which courts have rejected the imposition of that remedy. One such example is the case of Dext v. Rorech III, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of William Rorech, Jr., recently emanating from Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court. Ilene Cooper discusses the case in this week’s entry.
Continue Reading Lessons of Constructive Trusts Continued

Although void in some states, it is well settled that in terrorem or no contest clauses are enforceable under New York law. In a recent case, Surrogate Glen addressed the question of whether an in terrorem clause had been triggered by the petitioner contesting a New York instrument before a Florida court. This week’s entry, written by Robert Harper, discusses the decision.
Continue Reading Triggering In Terrorem Clauses With Out-Of-State Will And Trust Contests