Category Archives: Litigation

General Rule: sums remaining on deposit at the death of a party to a joint account belong to the surviving party

Posted on August 29, 2012 by Kelaher, Van and Moriarty

   In the Matter of the Estate of Aurelia DeFrank, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division: Probate Part,MercerCounty, Docket No.: 09-01870, revolved itself about a dispute amongst the estate beneficiaries regarding the ownership of non-probate assets.    By way of background, the decedent died onAugust 18, 2009.  She was widowed, but survived by two daughters.  The decedent executed an original Will datedJuly 12, 1999, and a copy of a Will datedMarch 21, 2002.  The latter Will was admitted to probate in formal form.     The decedent’s probate estate – which consisted of assets in the decedent’s name alone – totaled approximately $1,400,000 and was split between her two daughters in accordance with her Will.  However, during her lifetime, the decedent also established thirteen (13) joints accounts with the one daughter and not for the other.  The disputed joint accounts totaled $259,407.    A dispute developed between the daughters about ownership of the non-probate assets.  The matter centered on the joint accounts which were subject to the Multiple-Party Deposit Act (the “MPDA”), N.J.S.A. 17:16I-1 et seq.   The argument was that upon the decedent’s death the accounts became the joint owner’s sole property and not part of decedent’s estate.  The … Continue reading →

Posted in Joint Accounts, Litigation | Comments Off on General Rule: sums remaining on deposit at the death of a party to a joint account belong to the surviving party

Timeliness of Filing a Challenge to the Probate of a Will and the Imposition of Sanctions for Frivolous Filings

Posted on April 17, 2012 by Kelaher, Van and Moriarty

Recently, in the Matter of the Estate of Lichtsztral v. Pizem, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket Nos. A-3162-10T3 and A-4615-10T3, the Court examined the issues of the timeliness of filing challenges to the probate of a Will and the imposition of sanctions for frivolous filings. In 1996, the decedent executed a Last Will and Testament.  Pursuant to the Will, a trust was to be established for the decedent’s wife which would allow for the use of the principal of the trust for his wife’s benefit.  Then, upon his wife’s death, the remainder of the trust was to be paid to the decedent’s daughter.

Posted in Litigation, Probate, Wills | Tagged , | Comments Off on Timeliness of Filing a Challenge to the Probate of a Will and the Imposition of Sanctions for Frivolous Filings

Arbitration/Decedent’s Interest in LLC

Posted on February 20, 2012 by Kelaher, Van and Moriarty

In a recent decision from the Chancery Division in Bergen County, New Jersey, Ora Billig v. Estate of Billig, et al, Docket No. C-374-11, the Court dealt with a contested estate matter, wherein the defendant/executor moved to compel arbitration of the purchase of the decedent’s interest in Billing Realty, Co., LLC, which is an entity which owned and operated a number of parking garages in New York City. To start, the company’s operating agreement provided that the value of a member’s interest shall be determined by arbitration. However, two members of the LLC objected to the participation by the decedent’s wife in the arbitration. In the end, the Court granted defendant/executor’s motion, noting a strong public policy in favor of arbitration. Furthermore, the Court held that the widow’s interests will be affected by the valuation and will not be adequately represented by the executor. By allowing all parties to participate in a single proceeding will avoid piecemeal litigation, and therefore, the Court concluded that a single arbitration would best serve judicial economy, i.e. enhance efficiency, reduce delay and avoid piecemeal litigation.

Posted in Arbitration, Litigation | Comments Off on Arbitration/Decedent’s Interest in LLC

The Doctrine of Substantial Compliance and Writing Intended as a Will

Posted on June 16, 2011 by Kelaher, Van and Moriarty

In The Matter of the Estate of Blackwell, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-4816-08T34816-08T3, the Court examined the issue of substantial compliance with regard to the purported Last Will and Testament of Albertha Blackwell. Here, the document at issue was entitled “Last Will and Testament of Albertha Blackwell.” The body of the Will is five (5) pages, each of which bears a signature in the left-hand margin. The last page also bears a second signature. However, the Will is not dated, nor does it have an attestation clause. Page six (6) contained language similar to a self-proving affidavit and was signed by two (2) witnesses and notarized by an attorney. But, the acknowledgment is not dated. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 3B:3-2, a Will shall be in writing; signed by the testator or in the testator’s name by some other individual in the testator’s conscious presence and at the testator’s direction; and signed by two (2) witnesses. However, a Will may be admitted to probate under circumstances where it does not literally comply with the statutory requirements if substantial compliance exists. Or, a document not in strict compliance with 3B:3-2 may be admitted to probate if the proponent … Continue reading →

Posted in Litigation, Probate, Wills | Comments Off on The Doctrine of Substantial Compliance and Writing Intended as a Will

Undue Influence: Inter vivos transfers and Testamentary gifts

Posted on June 16, 2011 by Kelaher, Van and Moriarty

In the Matter of the Estate of Tsairis, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. ESX-CP-0070-2009, the Court addresses the issues of Undue Influence in the execution of a Deed and a Will, as well as the issue of whether a Will had been revoked. The decedent had four children. In 2000, she had a heart attack and had to undergo surgery. At around the same time, one of her daughters was going to have a Will prepared. So, the decedent and her husband went along with her and her husband, as well as others, to an attorney recommended by a friend of the decedent’s daughter. The Will prepared for the decedent named her daughter and her daughter’s husband as beneficiaries and executors. At the time of execution, the decedent was 75 years of age. Without explanation, the Will did not make any provision for the decedent’s husband or her children. The decedent also executed a general power of attorney at that same time. The decedent’s husband died in 2005. Over the course of several weeks in June and July of 2008, the decedent met with three different attorneys to review her estate plan. The first … Continue reading →

Posted in Litigation, Undue Influence | Comments Off on Undue Influence: Inter vivos transfers and Testamentary gifts