You are here: / Trusts and Estates
, , ,

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AT THE TIME THE ACTION AGAINST THEM WAS COMMENCED; THAT ACTION WAS A NULLITY; THEREFORE THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE THE EXECUTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the sidewalk slip and fall action brought against defendant property owners was a nullity because the property owners had died before the suit was commenced. Because the action was a nullity, the motion to amend the complaint to substitute the executor as a party should not have been granted:

“A party may not commence a legal action or proceeding against a dead person” … . The deaths of Leon Chain and Hanka Chain (hereinafter together the decedents) prior to the commencement of this action rendered the action, insofar as asserted against them, a legal nullity from its inception. The plaintiff was instead required to commence an action against the personal representative of the decedents’ estates … . Moreover, even assuming that Ziv was the duly appointed executor of each of the decedents’ estates, the decedents were never a party to the action since they died before the commencement of the action, and the decedents’ estates could not be brought into the action by substitution or by amendment of the caption (see CPLR 1015[a]; 1021 …). The plaintiff’s attempt to amend the complaint to designate the purported executor of the decedents’ estates as a defendant in the place of the decedents was invalid and ineffective to retroactively render the action properly commenced against the decedents’ estates … . Hussain v Chain, 2023 NY Slip Op 03455, Second Dept 6-28-23

Similar issues and result in a foreclosure action: Waterfall Victoria Master Fund, Ltd. v Estate of Dennis F. Creese, 2023 NY Slip Op 03497, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here the defendants had died at the time the action was commenced. That action was therefore a nullity. The complaint could not be amended to substitute the executor as a party.

 

, , ,

THE EMAIL EXCHANGES BETWEEN ATTORNEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EMAIL EXCHANGES EVINCED AN ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined: (1) the email exchanges between the parties’ attorneys did not constitute a settlement agreement; and (2) to be valid any stipulation of settlement must be placed on the record in open court, reduced to a court order and contained in a writing subscribed by the parties or counsel (not done here). The case concerns a dispute over the distribution of the estate of the deceased between the deceased’s daughter and wife. There was a two-justice dissent which argued a valid settlement agreement had been reached. The dissent made no mention of the statutory requirements for a stipulation of settlement:

Surrogate’s Court erred in finding that a binding agreement was formed, as the parties did not mutually assent to all material terms. To the extent that the daughter’s counsel asserts that the initial email set out an overview of the material terms to which the parties agreed during the ADR session, we note that such verbal out-of-court agreements are insufficient to form the basis for a stipulation of settlement (see CPLR 2104 …). The initial email and the subsequent correspondence also fail to establish that the parties reached an agreement. * * *

We also remind the parties that, to be enforceable, stipulations of settlement require more than just an agreement among the parties. Once the parties to an active litigation reach an agreement, they must (1) place the material terms of such agreement on the record in open court, (2) reduce them to a court order which is then signed and entered or (3) contain them in a writing subscribed by the parties or their counsel (see CPLR 2104 …). Matter of Eckert, 2023 NY Slip Op 03270, Third Dept 6-15-23

Practice Point: Here there was a question whether email exchanges between the parties’ attorneys after a settlement conference formed an enforceable settlement agreement. The majority said “no” and the two dissenters said “yes.” Although the issue does not seem to be determinative in this decision, the majority noted that the statutory requirements for a stipulation of settlement were not met (open court, reduced to an order, writing signed by the parties or counsel).

 

, ,

IN THESE ACTIONS BY INVESTORS AGAINST TRUSTEES STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (RMBS) THE COURT HELD (1) CLAIMS AGAINST TRUSTEES ARE NOT PROHIBITED BY A NO-ACTION CLAUSE (2) THE TRUSTEES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO ENFORCE REPURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND (3) THE TORT CLAIMS WERE DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS (CT APP).

​The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the appellate division, over two dissents, in these actions by investors against the trustees stemming from the collapse of residential mortgage-backed securities [RMBS], determined (1) claims against a trustee are not precluded by a “no action” clause, (2) trustees are not required to enforce repurchase obligations, and (3) the tort claims are duplicative of the breach of contract claims:

… RMBS [residential mortgage-backed securities] are financial instruments, popular in the mid-2000s, backed by individual mortgage loans …  The securitization process involves a “sponsor” who acquires a bundle of loans from banking institutions (“originators”) and sells the pooled loans to a “depositor,” who places the loans into a trust … . The trust issues certificates purchased by investors, who are entitled to a portion of the revenue stream from the borrowers’ payments … . The mortgage loans in the trust are serviced by a “servicer,” a party typically affiliated with the sponsor or originator. Each trust has a Trustee which acts on behalf of the Trust and whose responsibilities are prescribed by the securitization trusts’ governing agreements. While our previous RMBS cases have been brought by RMBS trustees, investors, or their insurers against RMBS sponsors, depositors, servicers, and originators (collectively, obligated parties) to recover for losses on the certificates, here the investors are suing the RMBS Trustees. * * *

… [C]laims against the trustee . . . cannot be prohibited by a no-action clause” … . “Because a standard no-action clause vests in the trustee all of the securityholders’ rights to bring suit, making the trustee the only path to a remedy, courts have been unwilling to enforce such clauses when the trustee’s conflicts or irrationality bar that path to relief” … . … [t]he Trustee cannot not sue itself ,,, and therefore compliance was not required. * * *

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims that they breached the governing agreements by failing to enforce repurchase obligations, arguing that these agreements do not impose such a duty on trustees…. . We … hold that the governing agreements do not impose on defendants an affirmative duty to enforce repurchase obligations and so those claims should be dismissed. * * *

We hold that, to the extent any tort claims remain, they should be dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract claims. IKB Intl., S.A. v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 03302, CtApp 6-15-23

Practice Point: Here residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) investors sued the trustees. The actions were not prohibited by no-action clauses. The trustees were not obligated to enforce repurchase agreements. And the tort claims were duplicative of the breach of contract claims.

 

, , ,

THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER THE NECESSARY PARTY CAN BE SUMMONED AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE ACTION CAN CONTINUE IN THE PARTY’S ABSENCE; THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMONING THE NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, explained the proper procedure where it is alleged the complaint should be dismissed for failure to include a necessary party, here the failure to include an estate in a foreclosure action. First the court should determine whether the party can be summoned, noting that the expiration of the statute of limitations is does not bar summoning the party. Second, if the party cannot be summoned the court should determine whether the action can continue in the party’s absence:

“Pursuant to RPAPL 1311 (1), ‘necessary defendants’ in a mortgage foreclosure action include, among others, ‘[e]very person having an estate or interest in possession, or otherwise, in the property as tenant in fee, for life, by the courtesy, or for years, and every person entitled to the reversion, remainder, or inheritance of the real property, or of any interest therein or undivided share thereof, after the determination of a particular estate therein'” … . “Particularly where, as here, the plaintiff seeks a deficiency judgment, and alleges a default in payment subsequent to the death of the deceased mortgagor, the estate of the mortgagor is a necessary party to the foreclosure action” … .

When a necessary party has not been made a party and is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the court, the proper remedy is not dismissal of the complaint, but rather for the court to order that the necessary party be summoned (see CPLR 1001[b] …). Contrary to the intervenors’ contention, the Supreme Court’s ability to direct joinder of a representative of [the] estate at this juncture is not affected by the purported running of the statute of limitations, because the expiration of a statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional defect … .  … [W]hen jurisdiction over an absent necessary party “can be obtained only by [that party’s] consent or appearance, the court, when justice requires, may allow the action to proceed without [that party],” upon consideration of various enumerated factors (CPLR 1001[b] …). U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v Germoso, 2023 NY Slip Op 02704, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Here an estate was a necessary party in the foreclosure action. The proper procedure is for the court to determine if the party can be summoned, and, if not, whether the action can continue in the party’s absence. The fact that the statute of limitations had run did not preclude summoning the estate.

 

, , ,

THE ADMINISTRATOR’S MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUED AS PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INITIALLY DENIED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON THE MOTION TO RENEW; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW, AND A MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A DECEASED PARTY ARE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the administrator’s (Walter’s) motion to renew in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. Walter moved to be substituted as plaintiff. Initially the motion was denied but upon Walter’s motion to renew, the motion was granted:

“A motion for leave to renew . . . shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . “CPLR 2221(e) has not been construed so narrowly as to disqualify, as new facts not offered on the prior motion, facts contained in a document originally rejected for consideration because the document was not in admissible form” … . However, “[w]hile it may be within the court’s discretion to grant leave to renew upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the prior motion, a motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation”… . “Thus, the court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion”… . “While law office failure can be accepted as a reasonable excuse in the exercise of the court’s sound discretion, the movant must submit supporting facts to explain and justify the failure, and mere neglect is not accepted as a reasonable excuse” … .

“If a party dies and the claim for or against him [or her] is not thereby extinguished the court shall order substitution of the proper parties” (CPLR 1015[a]). “A motion for substitution may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party” … . “If the event requiring substitution occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made” … . “In determining reasonableness, a court should consider the plaintiff’s diligence in seeking substitution, prejudice to the other parties, and whether the action is shown to have potential merit” … . “Even if the plaintiff’s explanation for the delay is not satisfactory, the court may still grant the motion for substitution if there is no showing of prejudice and there is potential merit to the action, in light of the strong public policy in favor of disposing of matters on the merits” … . Tollinchi v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 02554, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: The criteria for a motion to renes, and for a motion to be substituted as a party after the death of a party explained in some depth. Here the motion to renew and the motion to be substituted as a party should have been denied.

 

, ,

WHERE, AS HERE, A PARTY IS A DEFENDANT IN ONE ACTION AND A PLAINTIFF IN ANOTHER ACTION, BOTH OF WHICH STE,M FROM THE SAME TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, THE ACTIONS SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the two actions stemming from a single traffic accident should have been consolidated. Decedent leased a truck from defendant Travis and had an accident. Decedent sued Travis alleging negligent maintenance of the truck, Travis sued decedent for the damage to the truck. The two actions should have been consolidated:

CPLR 602(b) provides that “[w]here an action is pending in the supreme court it may, upon motion, remove to itself an action pending in another court and consolidate it or have it tried together with that in the supreme court.” Although a motion pursuant to CPLR 602 “is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, consolidation or joinder for trial is favored to avoid unnecessary duplication of trials, save unnecessary costs and expense, and prevent an injustice which would result from divergent decisions based on the same facts. Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion . . . to consolidate [or for a joint trial] should be granted, absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion” … .

Here, the two actions involve significant common questions of law and fact; a failure to try them jointly would result in a duplication of trials, unnecessary costs and expense, and a danger of an injustice resulting from divergent decisions; and there has been no showing of prejudice by Travez … . Sherpa v Ford Motor Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 02550, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Where two actions arise from the same traffic accident and a party is a defendant in one action and a plaintiff in the other, the actions should be consolidated pursuant to CPLR 602(b).

 

THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO DECEDENT’S CHILDREN WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY; THE TRANSFER WAS COMPENSATION FOR CARE, NOT A GIFT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS A GIFT AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DID NOT AUTHORIZE GIFTS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined that the transfer of real property to decedent’s children as compensation for the care given decedent was allowed under the operative power of attorney. The power of attorney did not include the power to make gifts. The dissent argued there was a question of fact whether the property transfer was a gift. Matter of Maika, 2023 NY Slip Op 02092, CtApp 4-25-23

Practice Point: The question here was whether the transfer of decedent’s property to his children was compensation for care, which was authorized by the power of attorney, or, as argued by the dissent, a gift, which was not authorized by the power of attorney.

 

, , , , ,

UNDER THE JONES ACT OHIO HAD JURISDICTION TO APPOINT ADMINSTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT WHO ALLEGEDLY DIED OF EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS ON MERCHANT MARINE SHIPS; THE NEW YORK EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE WAS TIMELY AND PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE OHIO ADMINISTRATORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, in a complex decision which cannot be fairly summarized here, determined: (1) under the Jones Act Ohio had jurisdiction to appoint administrators for decedent who allegedly died from asbestos exposure on merchant marine ships where he was employed; and (2) substitution of a New York personal representative, executor of the estate, was proper and timely:

… [T]he Jones Act provides that when a seaman dies from an employment injury “the personal representative of the seaman may elect to bring a civil action at law, with the right of trial by jury, against the employer” (46 USC § 30104).

The Jones Act grants a right of action to the personal representative “without other description” … . The Act does not require that the personal representative be either “a domiciliary or ancillary administrator” … . A domiciliary administrator has standing to file a Jones Act or FELA [Federal Employers’ Liability Act] lawsuit in another state … . However, nothing “explicitly clothes a domiciliary administrator with the exclusive right to maintain such an action” because such a requirement is inconsistent with “the remedial nature” of FELA and the “representative character” of such a suit … .

Notably, the personal representative’s authority under the Jones Act derives from “a federal statutory right and power given to carry out the policy of the federal statutes” and “is not limited to the confines of the State where he was appointed but is co-extensive with general federal jurisdiction” … . Bartel v Maersk Line, Ltd., 2023 NY Slip Op 02058, First Dept 4-20-23

Practice Point: Under the Jones Act, the estate of a merchant-marine employee who died from exposure to asbestos on the employer’s ships may sue the employer. Here the suit was deemed properly started by administrators appointed by an Ohio court and the New York executor was properly and timely substituted for the Ohio administrators.

See also the companion decision: Bartel v Farrell Lines, 2023 NY Slip Op 02057, First Dept 4-20-23

 

,

​ THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS SUIT AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT THE FATHER’S ESTATE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OR TO SUE AS BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs in this dispute among brothers about the father’s estate did not have the authority to act on behalf of the estate or to sue as beneficiaries of the estate. Therefore the action should have been dismissed:

“It is elementary that the executors or administrators represent the legatees, creditors and distributees in the administration of the estate; that their duty is to recover the property of the estate; and that the legatees and next of kin are concluded by their determination in respect to actions therefor and have no independent cause of action, either in their own right or the right of the estate” … . Here, the plaintiffs did not purport to commence this action as personal representatives of the decedent’s estate. The plaintiffs lacked “letters of administration authorizing [them] to act at the key points when this action was commenced and an amended complaint . . . was served” … . Absent extraordinary circumstances which are not present here, a beneficiary has no authority to act on behalf of an estate or to exercise a fiduciary’s rights with respect to estate property … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss, insofar as asserted against them, the causes of action in the amended complaint asserted by the plaintiffs in their derivative capacity on behalf of the decedent’s estate, as well as the causes of action asserted by the plaintiffs in their individual capacity as beneficiaries of the estate to recover assets of the estate … . Levy v Levy, 2023 NY Slip Op 01892, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: Absent the authority to act on behalf of an estate, the beneficiaries cannot sue each other claiming rights to estate assets.

 

, , ,

ABSENT FRAUD OR COLLUSION, STRICT PRIVITY PRECLUDES THE PROSPECTIVE BENEFICIARIES OF AN ESTATE FROM BRINGING A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY WHO PLANNED THE ESTATE; THE ATTORNEY OWED NO DUTY TO THE BENEFICIARIES (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the malpractice action by the prospective beneficiaries of an estate against the attorney who planned the estate should have been dismissed because there was no privity between the beneficiaries and the attorney:

In the context of estate planning malpractice actions, strict privity applies to preclude a third party, such as beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries like plaintiffs, from asserting a claim against an attorney for professional negligence in the planning of an estate, absent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances … . While plaintiffs argue their claim against defendant attorneys is couched as one for simple negligence, as opposed to legal malpractice, plaintiffs have not pleaded facts to show that defendant attorneys owed plaintiffs a duty of care in the drafting of their client’s will and trust agreement. The strict privity requirement here protects estate planning attorneys against uncertainty and limitless liability in their practice … . Thus, plaintiffs’ negligence claim is unavailing for lack of factual allegations to demonstrate that defendants owed plaintiffs a duty.

Plaintiffs have not pleaded sufficient factual allegations in their amended complaint to indicate that circumstances of fraud, collusion and/or aiding and abetting exist in this case to override the strict privity rule. Plaintiffs have not alleged fraud with requisite specificity as, inter alia, there are no allegations defendants knowingly made material misrepresentations in the will and trust for the purpose of inducing justifiable reliance by their client (since deceased) upon such misrepresentations, and moreover the allegations made do not support favorable inferences in that regard … . Phillips v Murtha, 2023 NY Slip Op 01767, First Dept 4-4-23

Practice Point: Absent fraud or collusion, strict privity precludes a legal malpractice action by prospective beneficiaries of an estate against the attorney who planned the estate. Here the attorney owed no duty to the prospective beneficiaries.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy