You are here: / Trusts and Estates
, , ,

Re: Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Fraud Causes of Action—Application of the “Repudiation Rule” and the “Discovery Rule” to the Statute of Limitations Explained

Plaintiff (a governmental agency charged with administering the workers’ compensation system) brought this action against workers’ compensation trusts alleging the trusts became insolvent because of defendants’ misconduct. Plaintiff alleged breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of contract and sought common law indemnification. The bulk of the decision is devoted to determining the timeliness of the actions. The decision addressed the “repudiation rule” and the “discovery rule” in fraud actions, as well as many other issues not summarized here:

…[T]he repudiation rule, which provides that “the applicable statutory period . . . does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated” … . The Court of Appeals has instructed that, under the repudiation rule, “the time starts running when a successor [fiduciary] is put in place” … . After the fiduciary “has yielded . . . to a successor, . . . [t]he running of the statute [of limitations] then begins, and only actual or intentional fraud will be effective to suspend it” … . * * * … [T]he repudiation rule acts as a toll of the limitations period for all misconduct committed by the fiduciary prior to repudiation of its obligation or termination of the relationship. In other words, all of the alleged misconduct prior to the severance date is included in the actionable portion of the claim. * * *

…[A] portion of plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim is grounded in its allegations that the … defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the trusts by fraudulently concealing or misrepresenting the financial condition of the trusts, the danger of operating deficits and issues associated with underwriting deficiencies, and that [defendants] did so as part of a scheme to increase membership and thereby increase its own commissions. These are fraud allegations, and they are essential to this portion of the fiduciary duty claim. That is, the relevant portion of the claim is “based on fraud” and “there would be no injury but for the fraud” … . As such, that portion of the fiduciary duty claim is subject to a six-year limitations period … . * * *

The “discovery rule” is found in CPLR 213 (8), which provides that claims based on fraud “must be commenced [within] the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time [a] plaintiff . . . discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.” It is settled that “[t]he inquiry as to whether a plaintiff could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud turns on whether the plaintiff was possessed of knowledge of facts from which [the fraud] could be reasonably inferred” … . New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd v Consolidated Risk Servs Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01699, 3rd Dept 2-26-15

 

,

Elements of a Constructive Trust Not Adequately Pled

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s complaint did not state a cause of action for a constructive trust.  Plaintiff alleged she was 50% owner of rental property ostensibly owned by the defendant, her uncle, based upon her uncle’s sharing the rent with plaintiff’s father (now deceased).  The Second Department noted that there was no allegation of a promise running from the uncle to the plaintiff, an essential element of a constructive trust.  The court further noted that plaintiff’s claim she inherited her father’s 50% interest in the property must be adjudicated as part of her father’s estate proceedings:

In general, a constructive trust may be appropriate in situations ” [w]hen property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest'” … . The necessary elements for imposition of a constructive trust are (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance on that promise, and (4) unjust enrichment … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff’s complaint, as amplified by her affidavit, does not adequately plead a cause of action to impose a constructive trust on the … property. While a confidential relationship exists between the plaintiff and the defendant as uncle and niece, the complaint does not allege the existence of a promise between the plaintiff and the defendant, or a transfer in reliance upon a promise between them.

Further, … the plaintiff’s allegations in support of a theory that she should be deemed a 50% owner of the … property do not adequately plead the elements of a constructive trust. Her claim of entitlement is based on the laws of inheritance, and must be pursued by the executor or administrator of her father’s estate … . Igneri v Igneri, 2015 NY Slip Op 01419, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

,

Remainderman Was Entitled to the Tax and Insurance Payments Made on Behalf of the Holder of the Life Estate/Life Estate Should Have Been Extinguished as a Matter of Equity

Plaintiff is the remainderman of defendant’s life estate in real property.  Defendant refused to pay the real estate taxes and insurance for the property.  Plaintiff paid the taxes and insurance and sued for those payments and to have the life estate extinguished. The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment to the plaintiff:

 

“The essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment or restitution is whether it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . 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 … .

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their first cause of action, which alleged unjust enrichment and sought restitution, and their second cause of action, which alleged waste and sought to extinguish the defendant’s life estate. As life tenant, the defendant was obligated to pay the property taxes and hazard insurance on the subject property, and the intentional failure to do so constitutes waste … . It is undisputed that the defendant intentionally failed to pay the property taxes and hazard insurance on the subject property, and he has clearly expressed his intention not to do so in the future. Under these circumstances, the remainder interest in the subject property is in constant danger of forfeiture in a tax lien sale, unless the plaintiffs continue paying the property taxes and hazard insurance premiums the defendant is otherwise obligated to pay. The plaintiffs therefore demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendant was unjustly enriched by the plaintiffs’ payment of these expenses for the defendant, and that equity warrants extinguishing his life estate in the subject property. In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Main Omni Realty Corp v Matus, 2015 NY Slip OP 00341, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

, ,

The Second of Two Ceremonial Marriages Is Presumed Valid/Property Owned by Persons Not Legally Married, But Who Are Described as Married in the Deed, Own the Property as Tenants In Common with Right of Survivorship Pursuant to the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL)

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed.  Decedent was plaintiff’s mother by her mother’s first marriage (in Haiti).  Plaintiff alleged that her mother’s subsequent marriage to defendant (in the US) was void because her mother never divorced plaintiff’s father. On that basis, plaintiff alleged that her mother and defendant owned real property as tenants in common, not tenants by the entirety, and therefore half of the property passed to her upon her mother’s death.  The Second Department held that the second marriage was presumed valid and plaintiff did not rebut the presumption.  The court further noted that, even if decedent and defendant were not legally married, the property would have been owned as a joint tenants with right of survivorship, by virtue of Estates Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) 6-2.2(d):

Where as here, there are two ceremonial marriages at issue, the second marriage is presumed valid, requiring proof from the challenger that the first marriage was not terminated … .

The existence of a rebuttable presumption in favor of the defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Further, even if [plaintiff’s mother] were not legally married to the defendant, the deed to the subject property nevertheless created a joint tenancy, with the right of survivorship … . The deed to the subject property was executed in 1980. Accordingly, EPTL 6-2.2(d), as amended in 1975, governs … . Pursuant to EPTL 6-2.2(d) “[a] disposition of real property . . . to persons who are not legally married to one another but who are described in the disposition as husband and wife creates in them a joint tenancy, unless expressly declared to be a tenancy in common.” Joseph v Dieudonne, 2015 NY Slip OP 00338, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

Proof Insufficient to Demonstrate Will Drafted and Signed a Few Days Before Death Reflected Decedent’s Intentions

The Third Department affirmed Surrogate’s Court’s denial of the admission of a will to probate.  The will was drafted and signed a few days before decedent’s death and changed the disposition of property.  The court described the proof necessary to authenticate a will and determined the proof was insufficient to link the most recent will to decedent’s intentions:

“In order for a will to be duly executed and attested in New York, the testator must sign the document at the end; the testator must sign or acknowledge the signature in the presence of the attesting witnesses; the testator must declare to each of the attesting witnesses that the instrument is his or her will; and there must be two attesting witnesses who shall, within 30 days, attest the testator’s signature and, at the request of the testator, sign their names and affix their residence addresses” (…see EPTL 3-2.1). Before admitting a will to probate, Surrogate’s Court must be satisfied that the will has been validly executed (see SCPA 1408 [1]…), “that the mind of the testator accompanied the act, and that the instrument executed speaks his [or her] language and really expresses his [or her] will” … . The proponent of a will bears the burden of proving its validity by a preponderance of the evidence … . * * *

In light of the uncertainty surrounding the drafting and execution of this will, we decline to disturb the decree of Surrogate’s Court denying admission of the will to probate … . Matter of Walker, 2015 NY Slip Op 00271, 3rd Dept 1-8-15

 

, ,

Constructive Trust Causes of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed on the Merits, Criteria Explained (Some Constructive Trust Causes of Action Were Properly Dismissed as Time-Barred, However)/Procedure Re: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Described/Application of Statute of Limitations to Constructive Trusts Explained/”Dead Man’s” Statute Not Applicable to Certain Evidence, at Least at this Stage of the Proceedings

The Fourth Department determined causes of action alleging the existence of constructive trusts on behalf of petitioners re: real property and stock owned by decedent should not have been dismissed on the merits.  (However, in a second related appeal addressed in the same decision, the Fourth Department determined the real-property constructive trust actions were time-barred). Re: the company stock, respondent, the executor, alleged he was the sole owner but could not support the allegation with documentary evidence. Petitioners alleged the stock should be distributed as one of the assets of decedent’s estate.  The Fourth Department held that the petitioners had stated a valid constructive-trust cause of action. The court discussed in some depth the consideration of evidence submitted re: a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the nature of a constructive trust, the inapplicability of the “dead-man’s” statute (CPLR 4519) to certain evidence, and the application of the six-year statute of limitations to constructive trusts.  With respect to the nature of constructive trusts, the court wrote:

We agree with petitioners that the petition sufficiently states a cause of action for a constructive trust with respect to the NGR property, the Manitou Road property and NYSFC stock. “On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction . . . We accept the facts as alleged in the [petition] as true, accord [the petitioners] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory . . . In assessing a motion under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), . . . a court may freely consider affidavits submitted by the [petitioner] to remedy any defects in the [petition] . . . and the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one’ ” … .

“[I]t is well settled that [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 . . . In order to invoke the court’s equity powers, [a petitioner] must show a confidential or fiduciary relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance thereon, a breach of the promise, and [the respondent’s] unjust enrichment . . . Inasmuch as a constructive trust is an equitable remedy, however, courts do not rigidly apply the elements but use them as flexible guidelines . . . In this flexible spirit, the promise need not be express, but may be implied based on the circumstances of the relationship and the nature of the transaction” … .

The facts as alleged in the petition and set forth in the corresponding affidavits establish the existence of a confidential and fiduciary relationship between respondent and decedents. The facts with respect to the NGR and Manitou Road properties establish that respondent promised to pay decedents for the NGR property and to reconvey the Manitou Road property to decedents after it was subdivided by respondent. The petition further alleges that the properties were transferred to respondent as a result of those promises, and that respondent breached those promises and was thereby unjustly enriched.

With respect to the NYSFC stock, the petition and corresponding affidavits allege that Anthony believed, until the day that he died, that he still owned the company and that respondent had made promises to “allow all of [decedents’] children to share in NYSFC.” While the allegations of an express promise are lacking, “[e]ven without an express promise, . . . courts of equity have imposed a constructive trust upon property transferred in reliance upon a confidential relationship. In such a situation, a promise may be implied or inferred from the very transaction itself. As Judge Cardozo so eloquently observed: Though a promise in words was lacking, the whole transaction, it might be found, was “instinct with an obligation” imperfectly expressed’ ” (Sharp, 40 NY2d at 122). Based on the circumstances of the relationship between respondent and decedents and the nature of their multiple transactions, we conclude that there are sufficient facts from which we can conclude that there was an implied promise made by respondent to decedents; that the transfer of stock, if indeed there was a transfer, was made in reliance upon that promise; and that the promise was thereafter broken, resulting in an unjust enrichment to respondent. Matter of Thomas, 2015 NY Slip Op 00017, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Action Dismissed Because Letters of Administration Had Not Been Issued to Plaintiff at the Time the Action Was Commenced

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of the action because the plaintiff had not received letters of administration at the time the summons with notice was filed and because the plaintiff did not allege any injury to him individually.  The court also noted that the plaintiff did not have standing (no representative capacity at the time the action was commenced) to request more time to serve the complaint:

A personal representative who has received letters of administration of a decedent's estate is the only party who is authorized to commence a survival action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the decedent or a wrongful death action to recover damages sustained by the decedent's distributees on account of his or her death … . Here, at the time the action was commenced by the filing of the summons with notice, the plaintiff had not yet received letters of administration of the decedent's estate and, thus, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was to dismiss the action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff in a representative capacity … . Moreover, although the action was commenced by the plaintiff, both individually and as “executor” of the decedent's estate, no cause of action asserted any injury or wrongdoing to him … . Thus, the Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was to dismiss the action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff individually.

Moreover, as the plaintiff lacked standing to sue in his representative capacity at the time he commenced the action, he could not establish any meritorious basis to extend his time to serve the complaint … . Shelley v Sooth Shore Healthcare, 2014 NY Slip Op 08625, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

,

Where There Is a Surviving Partner and No Agreement to the Contrary, the Representative of a Deceased Partner Cannot Participate in the Winding Up of the Partnership and Has No Legal Right to the Partnership’s Assets, Books, Records or Business

The Second Department noted that the power to wind up a partnership (here BDF) is held by the surviving partner (here 6D) and cannot be exercised by the representative of a deceased partner (here Mrs. Benedict):

Under Partnership Law § 68, “[u]nless otherwise agreed the partners who have not wrongfully dissolved the partnership or the legal representative of the last surviving partner, not bankrupt, has the right to wind up the partnership affairs; provided, however, that any partner, his [or her] legal representative, or his [or her] assignee, upon cause shown, may obtain winding up by the court.” Further, on the death of a partner, “his [or her] right in specific partnership property vests in the surviving partner or partners, except where the deceased was the last surviving partner, when his [or her] right in such property vests in his [or her] legal representative” (Partnership Law § 51[2][d]…). The representative of a deceased partner is not entitled to participate in or interfere with the continuation of or winding up of partnership business by the surviving partner … .

Based on this authority, the Supreme Court correctly determined that, upon Mrs. Benedict's death, 6D was the only entity with a legal right to wind up BDF's business affairs because 6D was the only surviving partner. Moreover, upon Mrs. Benedict's death, the estate had no legal right to BDF's assets, books, records, or business. Rather, all rights to such property vested immediately in 6D, which was the only entity authorized to wind up BDF's business.  Neilson v 6D Farm Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 08409, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

The Public Administrators of Two Counties Claimed the Authority and Jurisdiction for Letters of Administration Re: the Estate of an Incapacitated Person—In Resolving the Dispute the Appellate Court Discussed the Authority of a Public Administrator As Well As Surrogate’s Court’s Jurisdiction and the Decedent’s Domicile

The Second Department dealt with many issues which resulted from the public administrators in two counties applying for letters of administration re: the estate of an incapacitated person, a resident of Kings County who had moved from a nursing home in Kings County to a nursing home in Richmond County, where she died.  The administrator to whom the letters were issued first (Stein in Kings County) prevailed.  The court was asked to resolve many questions concerning a public administrator's authority, as well as questions concerning jurisdiction and domicile (not all of which are mentioned here):

Stein has exclusive authority to administer the decedent's estate pursuant to SCPA 704. That section provides, in part, that “[a] person who applies in good faith therefor, and to whom letters are first issued from a court having jurisdiction to issue them, has exclusive authority under the letters until they are revoked” (SCPA 704 [emphasis added]). Here, letters of administration were first issued to Stein by the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, and the record supports Stein's assertion that he had applied in “good faith” for letters of administration, without notice or knowledge of the petition filed in Richmond County (SCPA 704). Further, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, did not lack jurisdiction to issue letters of administration to Stein. Since the decedent was a domiciliary of New York State at the time of her death, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over the decedent's estate (see SCPA 205 [1]).

…[T]he Surrogate's Court, Kings County, did not lack personal jurisdiction over certain alleged distributees of the decedent. Pursuant to SCPA 1003(2), “[e]very eligible person who has a right to administration prior or equal to that of the petitioner and who has not renounced must be served with process upon an application for letters of administration” (emphasis added). However, “[w]here the right of the applicant for letters of administration is superior to the right of other persons interested in the estate, process need not issue and letters will be granted upon a proper petition and due qualification” (1-13 NY Practice Guide: Probate & Estate Admin § 13.08; see Margaret Valentine Turano, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 58A, SCPA 1003 at 46-47). Further, SCPA 1001 mandates the issuance of letters of administration to the public administrator where the only known distributees of a decedent are “issue of grandparents, other than aunts or uncles, on only one side” (SCPA 1001[1][f][ii]). * * *

…[T]he county in which the decedent was domiciled at the time of her death is not determinative here. Since Stein had “exclusive authority” to administer the decedent's estate under the letters of administration issued by the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, “until they are revoked” (SCPA 704 [emphasis added]), improper venue would not be a valid ground for revocation of those letters of administration. “Since domicile is a waivable and nonjurisdictional concept, if a court mistakenly, without objection, exercises jurisdiction over the estate of a domiciliary of another county, its decree is not vulnerable to direct or collateral attack for lack of subject matter jurisdiction” (…1-2 Warren's Heaton on Surrogate's Court Practice § 2.12).

In any event, the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, correctly determined that the decedent was domiciled in Kings County at the time of her death. The Surrogate's Court Procedure Act defines domicile as “[a] fixed, permanent and principal home to which a person wherever temporarily located always intends to return” (SCPA 103[15]). ” The determination of an individual's domicile is ordinarily based on conduct manifesting an intent to establish a permanent home with permanent associations in a given location'” … . “The law is well settled that an existing domicile continues until a new one is acquired,” and “[i]t is incumbent upon the party seeking to prove a change of domicile to demonstrate such a change by clear and convincing evidence” … . “To meet this burden, the movant must establish the decedent's intention to effect a change of domicile from her [or his] acts, statements, and conduct” (id.), and ” [t]he element of intent is essential'” … . Thus, generally, “an incapacitated person's admission into a health-care facility does not cause a change of domicile if the incapacitated person is unable to express an intention to establish a new domicile” … . Here, [the Richmond County public administrator] failed to meet his burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that the decedent changed her domicile from Kings County to Richmond County, inasmuch as the record reveals that the decedent lacked the capacity to express an intention to change her domicile … . Further, the mere fact that [the guardian of decedent's person was] given the authority to choose the decedent's “place of abode,” does not warrant the conclusion that [guardian] had any authority to change the decedent's domicile … . Matter of Bonora, 2014 NY Slip Op 08425, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

, ,

New Notice of Claim Did Not Need to Be Filed After Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Death Due to Injuries Described in the Pre-Death Notice of Claim

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined that plaintiffs, in an asbestos-exposure action against the Port Authority, did not need to file a new notice of claim after plaintiff’s decedent’s death from injuries described in the notice of claim filed when plaintiff’s decedent was alive.  After plaintiff’s decedent’s death, the original notice of claim was amended to add the administratrix and reference to the wrongful death claim:

A statute requires anyone who brings a lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey first to serve a notice stating the nature of the claim. We hold that under this statute a notice of a claim for personal injuries is a sufficient notice of a claim for wrongful death, where the person injured dies of his injuries between the service of the notice of claim and the beginning of the lawsuit.

The Port Authority was created in 1921 by a bi-state compact between New York and New Jersey. As an agency of two sovereign states, it cannot be sued without a waiver of sovereign immunity. Such a waiver was enacted by both states’ legislatures in 1950. The New York version of the legislation is found in sections 7101 through 7112 of the Unconsolidated Laws.

The contents of a notice of claim are specified in section 7108:

“The notice of claim required by section [7107] shall be in writing, sworn to by or on behalf of the claimant or claimants, and shall set forth (1) the name and post office address of each claimant and of his attorney, if any, (2) the nature of the claim, (3) the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose, and (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained so far as then practicable.”

Here, the relevant statutory requirements are that a notice must specify the claimant, the time and place where the claim arose, the nature of the claim, and “so far as then practicable” the items of damage or injuries sustained (see Unconsolidated Laws § 7108 …). Those requirements were sufficiently met by the explanation in [plaintiff’s] notice of claim that he had contracted malignant mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos on the World Trade Center site in the early 1970s, and suffered physical and emotional injuries and incurred medical expenses as a result. This information was definite enough to fulfill the purpose of the notice of claim requirement: to allow the State to investigate the claim and to estimate its potential liability. It is hard to see how a later notice adding the information that the claimant had died of his disease could have been necessary to an investigation. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig, 2014 NY Slip Op 08053, CtApp 11-20-14

 

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