You are here: / 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

 

,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, , , , ,

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

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PART PERFORMANCE DEFEATED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS DEFENSE TO THE ALLEGED ORAL CONTRACT AND WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS HELD AS A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE PROVIDED FUNDS TO DEFENDANT TO PURCHASE PROPERTY WHICH. PURSUANT TO THE ORAL AGREEMENT, WOULD BE TRANSFERRED BY DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming the denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion, determined there were question of fact about (1) whether part performance defeated the statute of frauds defense, (2) whether there was a fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendant and (3) whether the property was therefore held by defendant as a constructive trust. Plaintiff and defendant were close friends. Plaintiff alleged, pursuant to an oral agreement, he provided funds to defendant for the purchase of property which plaintiff would manage until defendant transferred it to the plaintiff. The defendant alleged there was no such agreement, plaintiff did not provide funds for the purchase of the property and defendant owned the property outright:

… [W]hile the plaintiff’s work in negotiating the purchase of the subject property and in managing it might be susceptible to other explanations, his contribution of approximately $1.5 million toward its purchase, albeit partially in the form of loans from the defendant, would be “unintelligible or at least extraordinary” without reference to the alleged oral agreement … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that although the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the alleged oral agreement was barred by the statute of frauds, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding part performance … . …

The four factors to be considered in ascertaining whether the imposition of a constructive trust is warranted are the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance thereon, and unjust enrichment … . …

… [T]he transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was not arm’s length but rather took place in the context of a friendship characterized not only by shared interests, cultural affiliations, and personal trust, but also by reliance on one another in business matters, including loans in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While any single factor might not be sufficient, by itself, to establish a fiduciary relationship … . …

… [T]he terms of the agreement as described by the plaintiff and as evidenced by the parties’ actions are not fatally indefinite. The “doctrine of definiteness” … should not be “applied with a heavy hand” … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s promise to manage the property and pay its expenses was “a specific, bargained for legal detriment” irrespective of its value to the defendant … . Accordingly, the alleged oral agreement does not fail for lack of consideration. Toobian v Golzad, 2021 NY Slip Op 02185, Second Dept 4-7-21

The trial in this matter was held, plaintiff prevailed, and the Second Department affirmed: Toobian v Golzad, 2021 NY Slip Op 02186, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

,

THE 2009 AMENDMENTS TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW ALLOWED LUMP SUM PAYMENTS OF SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARDS; CLAIMANT DIED BEFORE THE SLU AWARD WAS MADE; CLAIMANT’S ESTATE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE LUMP SUM AWARD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a concurring opinion, determined that the 2009 amendments allowing lump sum schedule loss of use (SLU) awards did not entitle claimant’s estate to the lump sum award. The estate was entitled only to the portion of the award that would have been due to the claimant for the period prior to his death:

In December 2014, decedent claimant Norman Youngjohn sustained injuries when he slipped on ice and fell in a parking lot at work while employed by Berry Plastics Corporation. After decedent sought workers’ compensation benefits, a claim was established for injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow, and he was awarded temporary benefits. In September 2016, decedent notified the Workers’ Compensation Board that his injuries had become permanent, and the workers’ compensation insurance carrier (the Carrier) subsequently notified the Board that decedent’s injuries were amenable to a schedule loss of use (SLU) award (see generally Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3]). However, in March 2017, before resolution of his claim for permanent partial disability benefits, decedent suffered a fatal heart attack unassociated with his work-related injuries. * * *

The legislature’s 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (u) and 25 (1) (b)—which provide that SLU awards may be “payable” in a lump sum upon request of the injured employee …—changed the allowable methods of payment for SLU awards. However, the Estate’s contention that these amendments implicitly provide a claimant’s estate a new entitlement to the value of an SLU award upon a claimant’s death, or otherwise direct that an SLU award “accrues” at that time for purposes of an estate’s recovery—issues that are distinct from the permissible methods of payment for such awards …—cannot be reconciled with the fact that the legislature did not amend Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (4) (d) when it authorized lump sum payments. An estate’s entitlement to an SLU award upon a claimant’s death remains governed by Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (4) (d), which was left untouched by the 2009 amendments. Matter of Estate of Youngjohn v Berry Plastics Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 02017, CtApp 4-1-21

 

, ,

THE ESTATE OF THE MORTGAGOR WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE PROPERTY WAS CONVEYED BEFORE HER DEATH AND THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT SEEK A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the estate of the mortgagor was not a necessary party in the foreclosure proceeding and the complaint should not have been dismissed on that ground:

The estate of the mortgagor was not a necessary party to this action, as it had no interest in the property at the time this action was commenced, inasmuch as the mortgagor conveyed the property that is subject to the mortgage to the defendant prior to her death, and the complaint does not seek a deficiency judgment against her estate … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Apelbaum, 2021 NY Slip Op 02008, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE OBJECTIONS TO PROBATE ALLEGING LACK OF DUE EXECUTION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate alleging lack of due execution and undue influence should have been granted. The objectants were the children of decedent’s son, who were excluded from any distribution from the estate. With respect to lack of due execution, the court wrote:

“The proponent of a will has the burden of proving that the propounded instrument was duly executed in conformance with the statutory requirements” … . “Where the will is drafted by an attorney and the drafting attorney supervises the will’s execution, there is a presumption of regularity that the will was properly executed in all respects” … . Although the evidence here did not establish that the execution of the will was supervised by an attorney, “a presumption of compliance with the statutory requirements also arises where a propounded will contains an executed attestation clause and a self-proving affidavit” … . Further, “even where the memory of both attesting witnesses is failed or imperfect, a will nevertheless may be admitted to probate” … .

Here, the petitioner established, prima facie, that the 2010 will was duly executed pursuant to EPTL 3-2.1 by submitting a copy of the 2010 will with its executed attestation clause and self-proving affidavit … . At their depositions, both attesting witnesses, who were employees of the drafting attorney’s law office, identified their signatures as witnesses to the 2010 will … . Both attesting witnesses testified as to the office’s general practice for will executions, which met the statutory requirements. In opposition, the objectants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Matter of Michels, 2021 NY Slip Op 01978, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

, , ,

THE INFANCY TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 208 APPLIES TO A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION WHERE THE SOLE DISTUBUTEES ARE INFANTS; THE TOLL, HOWEVER, DOES NOT APPLY TO A RELATED ASSAULT AND BATTERY ACTION WHICH IS PERSONAL TO THE DECEDENT (FRIST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the infancy toll of the statute of limitations in CPLR 208 applies where the unmarried father of two children dies intestate. The statute of limitations for the ensuing wrongful death action is tolled until the appointment of a guardian of the children’s property. Father was involved in an altercation with a defendant, suffered fatal injuries and died later that day, September 6, 2012. Plaintiffs, the mothers of the two children, were each appointed guardians of the property of their children in 2015. That is when the statute began running on the wrongful death action, rendering the 2016 complaint timely. A wrongful death action directly compensates the distributees, here the children. The assault and battery action, by contrast, is personal to the decedent. Therefore the infancy toll does not apply to the assault and battery cause of action. The First Department explicitly overruled a decision relied upon by the defendants, Ortiz v Hertz Corp., 212 AD2d 374 (1st Dept 1995). (The opinion is comprehensive and can not be fairly summarized here.):

Today we clarify that Ortiz is not good law, because it was based on an incorrect application and interpretation of Hernandez. Therefore, pursuant to the precedent established in Hernandez [78 NY2d 687] … we hold that when the sole distributees of a decedent’s estate are infants, the toll of CPLR 208 applies to a wrongful death claim “until the earliest moment there is a personal representative or potential personal representative who can bring the action whether by appointment of a guardian [of the property of the infant distributee] or majority of [a] distributee, whichever occurs first” … . Machado v Gulf Oil, L.P., 2021 NY Slip Op 01849, First Dept 3-25-21

 

BECAUSE PETITIONER-WIFE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE EPTL, SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO HER ELECTIVE SHARE OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND’S DEATH BENEFIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-wife was not entitled to her elective share of her deceased husband’s death benefit from the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS). Her husband’s father was the named beneficiary. Because petitioner did not comply with the relevant provisions of the Estate, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL), NYCERS was justified in distributing the funds to her husband’s father:

A surviving spouse’s election to take a share of the decedent’s estate “must be made within six months from the date of issuance of letters testamentary or of administration, as the case may be, but in no event later than two years after the date of decedent’s death” (EPTL 5-1.1-A[d][1]). A surviving spouse must file written notice of such election in the Surrogate’s Court that issued the letters testamentary or of administration (see EPTL 5-1.1-A[d][1]).

The provisions of EPTL 5-1.1-A(b) “shall not prevent a corporation or other person from paying or transferring any funds or property to a person otherwise entitled thereto, unless there has been served personally upon such corporation or other person a certified copy of an order enjoining such payment or transfer made by the surrogate’s court having jurisdiction of the decedent’s estate or by another court of competent jurisdiction” (EPTL 5-1.1-A[b][4] …]). EPTL 5-1.1-A(b)(4) further provides that a “corporation or other person paying or transferring any funds or property described in clause (G) of subparagraph one of this paragraph,” which includes death benefits, “to a person otherwise entitled thereto, shall be held harmless and free from any liability for making such payment or transfer, in any action or proceeding which involves such funds or property.”

Here, it is undisputed that the petitioner did not serve NYCERS with an order enjoining it from paying the entirety of the decedent’s death benefit to the named beneficiary, Ghulam. Accordingly, pursuant to EPTL 5-1.1-A(b)(4), NYCERS “shall be held harmless and free from any liability for making such payment” in the instant proceeding. Matter of Baig, 2021 NY Slip Op 01763, Second Dept 3-24-21

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy