Trusts and Estates Archives - New York Appellate Digest

ALTHOUGH DOMINICA, THE EXECUTRIX OF JOSEPHINE’S ESTATE, WAS NEVER SUBSTITUTED FOR JOSEPHINE AFTER JOSEPHINE’S DEATH, DOMINICA APPEARED AND ACTIVELY LITIGATED A MOTION TO VACATE; THE FAILURE TO EFFECT SUBSTITUTION IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS A MERE IRREGULARITY; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the failure to substitute the executrix of Josephine’s estate, Dominica P., after Josephine’s death did not nullify the proceedings. Dominca P appeared and actively litigated a motion to vacate brought by Kathleen. In that circumstance the failure to effect substitution was deemed a mere irregularity:

Josephine died at some point before the entry of the order on appeal, and the executrix of her estate, Dominica P., was never formally substituted as the petitioner in this proceeding. There is no dispute, however, that Dominica was properly served with Kathleen’s motion to vacate, and Dominica never objected to adjudicating Kathleen’s motion in the absence of a formal substitution order. To the contrary, Dominica—acting in her capacity as the executrix of Josephine’s estate—appeared and successfully opposed Kathleen’s motion on the merits. Dominica likewise appeared in this Court to oppose Kathleen’s appeal. Because Dominica appeared and actively litigated Kathleen’s motion on the merits, it is well established that any “defect in failing to first effect substitution was a mere irregularity” … . Moreover, to formally correct this irregularity, we now modify the order by substituting Dominica as the petitioner in this proceeding … . Matter of Robinson v Kathleen B., 2021 NY Slip Op 04320, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

July 9, 2021/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Contract Law, Trusts and Estates

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN ACTION TO IMPOSE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND AN ACTION ALLEGING UNJUST ENRICHMENT EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department explained the differences between an action to impose a constructive trust and an action alleging unjust enrichment, here in the context of a couple’s investment in building a new house and the allegation one party put in 800 hours of unpaid labor which benefitted the other party. The court held the constructive trust action was properly dismissed, but the unjust enrichment action should not have been dismissed:

Although the equitable claims of constructive trust and unjust enrichment are elementally related and involve overlapping proof, certain essential elements differ. “[A] constructive trust may be imposed when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest” … . “The elements of a constructive trust are a confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance on that promise and unjust enrichment” … .As relevant here, with respect to the promise element, it may be express or implied, as determined by the circumstances … . “Finally, a person . . . is unjustly enriched when retention of the benefit received would be unjust considering the circumstances of the transfer and the relationship of the parties” … .

Importantly, and as relevant here, “the constructive trust doctrine serves as a fraud-rectifying remedy rather than an intent-enforcing one” … . By contrast, an action based on unjust enrichment, which would only result in a money judgment rather than a judicially imposed lien, requires the plaintiff to establish that “(1) the other party was enriched, (2) at [the plaintiff’s] expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . Clark v Locey, 2021 NY Slip Op 04176, Third Dept 7-1-21

July 1, 2021/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Trusts and Estates

DECEDENT, WHO DIED TESTATE IN 2004, WAS AWARDED COMPENSATION BY CONGRESS IN 2015 BECAUSE HER HUSBAND HAD BEEN HELD IN IRAN AS A HOSTAGE FROM 1979 TO 1981; BECAUSE THE COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED AFTER HER DEATH, IT DOES NOT PASS BY WILL, BUT RATHER BY THE LAWS OF INTESTACY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Centra, determined the funds awarded by Congress to the decedent, after the decedent’s death, do not pass by decedent’s will, but rather by the laws of intestacy. Decedent, who died in 2004, was the wife of a man held hostage in Iran from 1979 to 1981. In 2015 Congress awarded compensation to the hostages’ families:

Regarding property acquired by an estate after the death of the testator, case law is sparse, but is consistent with the language in EPTL 3-3.1 providing that only property that a testator is entitled to devise “at the time of his [or her] death” may be distributed pursuant to the terms of the will … . We are particularly persuaded by the decision in Shaw Family Archives Ltd. , which involved a dispute over ownership interest in Marilyn Monroe’s right of publicity after her death. The court determined that New York law did not permit a testator to dispose by will of property that she did not own at the time of her death … . The court cited to EPTL 3-3.1 and held that “[t]he corollary principle recognized by the courts is that property not owned by the testator at the time of his [or her] death is not subject to disposition by will” … .

We agree with the reasoning in Shaw Family Archives Ltd. that the New York rule is grounded in the testator’s lack of capacity to devise property he or she does not own at the time of death … . Matter of Keough, 2021 NY Slip Op 03948, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

June 17, 2021/by Bruce Freeman

Banking Law, Trusts and Estates

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SURROGATE’S FINDING THAT THREE JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS WERE PART OF THE ESTATE AS OPPOSED TO JOINT ACCOUNTS WITH RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Surrogate’s Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether three joint bank accounts passed to respondent outside the estate or were part of the estate. The was no evidence of a signature card which included “right of survivorship” language. Respondent argued decedent intended the bank accounts to be gifts to the respondent, but the language of the will raised questions of fact about decedent’s intent:

Absent the necessary survivorship language, the statutory presumption contained in Banking Law § 675 does not apply, even if the documents creating the account provide that it is a “joint” account … . Here, on her motion, respondent failed to establish that the statutory presumption created under Banking Law § 675 is applicable because she failed to submit signature cards or ledgers of the accounts that included the required survivorship language. …

Respondent averred in an affidavit that decedent placed her name on the accounts with the stated intention of gifting them to her. Respondent also submitted related account documents, including bank documents for all four accounts that reference both respondent and decedent’s names and include survivorship or joint tenancy language. Thus, respondent submitted evidence establishing that the four accounts were joint accounts with right of survivorship, and the burden then shifted to petitioners. …

… [P]etitioners submitted decedent’s will, which left the estate to the three children. Thus, the intent of decedent, as evidenced by her will, is inconsistent with respondent’s contention that the three bank accounts were gifts to respondent or joint tenancies with survivorship rights … . … [P]etitioners submitted respondent’s deposition testimony that those three accounts were funded solely by decedent, that one of the … accounts was used as decedent’s primary checking account, and that payments out of that account were for only decedent’s benefit. … [R]espondent, who became joint owner of those three accounts when decedent was in her mid to late eighties, testified that she helped decedent with her banking. Matter of Najjar (Sanzone), 2021 NY Slip Op 03777, Fourth Dept 6-11-21

June 11, 2021/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Fiduciary Duty, Trusts and Estates

THE FIDUCIARY TOLLING RULE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ACTION AGAINST AN EXECUTOR (WHO WAS REMOVED BY THE COURT) UNTIL THE SUCESSOR FIDUCIARY WAS APPOINTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the constructive trust action based upon alleged self-dealing by an executor who was removed by the court was not time-barred. The fiduciary tolling rule applied:

Under the fiduciary tolling rule, a claim alleging wrongful conduct by an individual in his or her fiduciary capacity does not accrue until there is an open repudiation of the fiduciary obligation or a judicial settlement of the fiduciary’s account … . This rule tolls the statute of limitations “for all misconduct committed by the fiduciary prior to repudiation of its obligation or termination of the [fiduciary] relationship” … since, absent either repudiation or removal, the aggrieved parties “were entitled to assume that the [fiduciary] would perform his [or her fiduciary] responsibilities” … , and it is highly unlikely that a sitting fiduciary would assert a constructive trust claim against himself or herself. … Under this rule, the toll continues until a successor fiduciary is appointed … . Matter of George, 2021 NY Slip Op 03231, Third Dept 5-20-21

May 20, 2021/by Bruce Freeman

Negligence, Trusts and Estates

WRONGFUL DEATH PROCEEDS BELONG TO THE DISTRIBUTEES, NOT THE ESTATE; THEREFORE, RATHER THAN DIVIDING THE PROCEEDS EQUALLY, SURROGATE’S COURT MUST CONDUCT A HEARING AND DISPURSE THE PROCEEDS BASED UPON PECUNIARY LOSS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, noted that the proceeds of a wrongful death action belong to the distributees, not the estate. Therefore the proceeds should not be divided equally among the distributees:

Petitioners commenced this proceeding in Surrogate Court seeking judicial allocation and distribution of the settlement proceeds resulting from a Supreme Court wrongful death action. The proceeds of a wrongful death action belong to the statutory distributees of the decedent and not to the estate; therefore, the law does not presume equal distribution of shares (see EPTL 5—4.3 and 5—4.4[a][1] ). Instead, each distributee receives damages in proportion to the pecuniary injuries suffered by him or her, as determined after a hearing in Surrogate’s Court (see EPTL 5—4.4[a][1]). Here, Surrogate’s Court allocated objectant 50% of the settlement proceeds of the wrongful death action without conducting a hearing on the issue of pecuniary loss. Matter of Dixson, 2021 NY Slip Op 02870, First Dept 5-6-21

May 6, 2021/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Municipal Law, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL), Real Property Tax Law, Trusts and Estates

A TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS AN IN REM ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY, NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS NOT A NULLITY DESPITE THE DEATH OF THE OWNER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tax foreclosure proceeding was not a nullity and did not violate due process. The foreclosed restaurant belonged to plaintiff’s husband, who died in 2006. The treasurer of Ontario County followed all the proper procedures for notification of the tax foreclosure proceedings. Tax foreclosure is an in rem action to which there are no parties. So the argument that the action could not be brought against the deceased owner of the restaurant was rejected:

… [B]y statute, mortgagors are necessary party defendants to mortgage foreclosure actions (see RPAPL 1311 [1]). In contrast, a petition in a tax foreclosure proceeding relates only to the property and not any particular person (see RPTL 1123 [2] [a]). The distinction between in rem tax foreclosure proceedings and mortgage foreclosure actions with respect to the “parties” is critical. While an action or proceeding cannot be commenced against a dead person who, by necessity, is a named party to the action … , a tax foreclosure proceeding is not commenced against any person; it is commenced against the property itself. The owners are not necessary “parties” to the tax foreclosure proceeding; they are only “[p]arties entitled to notice” of the proceeding (RPTL 1125 [1] [a]; see RPTL 1123 [1], [2] [a]; cf. RPAPL 1131). As a result, the tax foreclosure proceeding was properly commenced even though decedent had died … , and there was no need to substitute someone for the dead owner (see CPLR 1015). Hetelekides v County of Ontario, 2021 NY Slip Op 02697, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

April 30, 2021/by Bruce Freeman

Contract Law, Trusts and Estates

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL; THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT ELEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY A CONTRACT SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF AS A TRUSTEE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a partial dissent, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for a constructive trust, the unjust enrichment element of the constructive trust was not precluded by a contract, and the alleged promise to take care of plaintiff in return for an interest in an LLC was clear and unambiguous enough to support a cause of action for promissory estoppel:

According to plaintiff, defendant [plaintiff’s daughter] had promised that, if plaintiff created the LLC and gave her a 90% membership interest in the LLC and control as sole manager, she would “help [plaintiff] manage his businesses and real property interests, help take care of [plaintiff and his wife], help ensure their financial well-being, and visit them often.” After plaintiff’s wife died, defendant allegedly ended all direct communication with plaintiff and gave “sporadic and cursory” attention to plaintiff’s business and real property interests, prompting him to commence this action. * * *

Inasmuch as the amended complaint alleged a confidential or fiduciary relation, a promise, and a transfer made in reliance on that promise, the issue concerning the [constructive trust] cause of action is whether the amended complaint adequately alleged unjust enrichment.

“[I]n order to sustain an unjust enrichment claim, ‘[a] plaintiff must show that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at [the plaintiff’s] expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the other party] to retain what is sought to be recovered’ ” … . … Where the parties executed a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter, recovery on a theory of unjust enrichment for events arising out of that subject matter is ordinarily precluded” … .

Here, there is a written contract that covers the particular subject matter, i.e., the LLC’s operating agreement. That agreement, however, was executed by defendant and plaintiff in his role as trustee. … Inasmuch as plaintiff, individually, was not a party to the operating agreement, his first cause of action, insofar as it was asserted by him, individually, is not precluded by the written contract … . Van Scoter v Porter, 2021 NY Slip Op 02692, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

April 30, 2021/by Bruce Freeman

Fiduciary Duty, Judges, Trusts and Estates

PURSUANT TO THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (SCPA), AN ADMINISTRATOR MAY BE SUSPENDED WITHOUT A PETITION OR ISSUANCE OF PROCESS FOR MISAPPROPRIATING ESTATE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the motion to suspend the administrators of the estate should have been granted. The administrators had allowed the estate to languish for 20 years and there was evidence estate property had been misappropriated by one administrator:

Pursuant to SCPA 719, “the court may make a decree suspending . . . or revoking letters issued to a fiduciary from the court . . . without a petition or the issuance of process” where, among other things, “any of the facts provided in [SCPA] 711 are brought to the attention of the court” (SCPA 719[10] … . The circumstances set forth under SCPA 711 justifying “a decree suspending . . . or revoking those letters” include a fiduciary “having wasted or improperly applied the assets of the estate” … or having “removed property of the estate . . . without prior approval of the court” … . “The removal of a fiduciary pursuant to SCPA 711 and 719 is equivalent to ‘a judicial nullification of the testator’s choice and may only be decreed when the grounds set forth in the relevant statutes have been clearly established'” … . The grounds set forth under SCPA 711 may be clearly established “by undisputed facts or concessions, where the fiduciary’s in-court conduct causes such facts to be within the court’s knowledge, or where facts warranting amendment of letters are presented to the court during a related evidentiary proceeding” … . “Thus, revoking a fiduciary’s letters . . . pursuant to SCPA 719 will constitute an abuse of discretion ‘where the facts are disputed, where conflicting inferences may be drawn therefrom, . . . or where there are claimed mitigating facts that, if established, would render summary removal an inappropriate remedy'” … .

Here, the record contains undisputed evidence of conflict between the administrators, and evidence that the animosity between them has interfered with the expeditious administration of the decedent’s estate, which they have allowed to languish for nearly two decades … . Moreover, Menfus [one of the administrators] admitted … he executed a deed to one of the subject properties to himself, and permitted his father to live in the other property rent free. Matter of Steward, 2021 NY Slip Op 02395, Second Dept 4-21-21

April 21, 2021/by Bruce Freeman

Contract Law, Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Negligence, Securities, Trusts and Estates

IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE CONTRACT WHETHER DEFENDANT TRUSTEE WAS TO PERFORM A MERELY MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OR A GATEWAY FUNCTION IN ACCEPTING ASSETS FOR THE TRUST FROM A NONPARTY WHICH WAS ACTING FRAUDULENTLY; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCEPTING NON-NEGOTIABLE ASSETS WERE DIRECT OR INDIRECT AND WHETHER A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS BREACHED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty action against defendant trustee, Wilmington, should not have been dismissed. Wilmington acted as a trustee for assets transferred to the trust by a nonparty. The contract stated Wilmington would be responsible only for its own negligence but also stated no non-negotiable assets were to be placed into the trust. The nonparty which transferred assets to the trust acted fraudulently and made risky investments rendering the trust assets out-of-compliance with state law. Plaintiff sued Wilmington for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Wilmington argued that any damages suffered by plaintiff from the assets transferred by the nonparty were indirect, not direct, and therefore barred by the trust agreements:

… [I]t can be argued that, in light of Wilmington’s promise not to accept nonnegotiable assets into the trusts, and to be responsible for its own negligence, maintaining the value of the assets in the trusts was inherent in the service Wilmington agreed to provide. Thus, there is merit to plaintiffs’ argument that when the assets proved not to be negotiable, they lost the benefit of their bargain and were entitled to recover as direct damages the diminution in value, and the concomitant costs of restoring the assets to negotiable status, such as professional fees. * * *

… [A]t this stage of the litigation, it is difficult to discern whether the parties contemplated that Wilmington would have to pay the damages sought by plaintiffs if it failed to perform under the trust agreements. Again, the agreements provided that Wilmington would be liable for “its own negligence,” which a reasonable factfinder could consider as recognition that Wilmington, if it did not perform its duties in accordance with a minimum level of care, would need to pay more than the nominal damages represented by its fee. * * *

Even though the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims involved the same conduct, the fiduciary duty claim alleges a breach of a noncontractual duty relating to the trustee’s independent duty to perform nondiscretionary ministerial duties with respect to the negotiability of assets. Thus, the fact that Wilmington’s failure to prevent nonnegotiable assets from entering the trusts breached both fiduciary and contractual duties does not bar plaintiffs from seeking damages related to the former … . Bankers Conseco Life Ins. Co. v Wilmington Trust, N.A., 2021 NY Slip Op 02355, First Dept 4-20-21

April 20, 2021/by Bruce Freeman