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the issues of Undue Influence in the execution of a Deed and a Will, as well as the issue of whether a Will had been revoked.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 →

In the Matter of the Estate of Stezzi, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-2660-08T1, the Court reviewed a trial court’s sua sponte order dismissing plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff was omitted from his father’s Will of 2006. As a result, he filed a pro se Complaint to invalidate the Will of 2006 and for a declaration that the terms of a 1984 Will be enforced (which included him) or, in the alternative, that a declaration be made that his father died intestate. The Complaint alleged lack of capacity and undue influence. The parties appeared for a Case Management Conference; the conference was arranged by the Court in lieu of trial after plaintiff advised that he was not prepared to proceed. After lengthy colloquy on the record, the trial judge summarily dismissed the complaint, sua sponte. The judge essentially found that plaintiff was not prepared to try the case and that the legal basis of his contentions had not been sufficiently articulated. After noting that it appreciated the trial court’s frustration in dealing with a pro se litigant, the Court held that the record did not reflect that plaintiff was given appropriate notice prior to the conference that his … Continue reading →