New Jersey Family Law

WEST PATERSON PASSAIC COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER TRUSTS & ESTATES

The daughter of an heir to the Jell-O fortune, who spent 14 years looking for her birth mother, is not entitled to a multimillion-dollar share of two disputed trusts, according to New York's highest court. In the disputed trusts decision, the court reversed the Appellate Division, finding that the law in effect when the trusts were executed does not imply the right of an adopted-out child to share in a class gift. The unanimous court also found that public policy precludes office manager Elizabeth McNabb, 52, from receiving shares of two trusts created to benefit her birth mother's "descendants" and "living children."    Matter of the Accounting by Fleet Bank. Court of Appeals, March 21, 2008     <http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/mar08/27opn08.pdf>

MAHWAH NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY

The mother's estate was successful in obtaining a jury verdict against the son. This judgment arose from his default on a stock purchase agreement, entered into with his retiring parents in 1990, to purchase shares of the family business, and the subsequent suit to enforce the obligation. The court affirms (1) the summary judgment ruling, holding the stock purchase agreement enforceable; (2) the trial court's ruling excluding hearsay evidence; (3) a variety of other rulings made during the trial; and (4) the trial court's award of pre-judgment interest on the jury verdict.     Izzo, etc. v. Izzo, et al.; Kreizman, etc. v. Izzo, New Jersey App. Div., February 21, 2008

TENAFLY NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY FAMILY MEDIATION

This is a dispute among the widow of the decedent, her mother-in-law, and the decedent's adult children, about where to bury the decedent. The widow wanted to bury her husband in a plot the two had purchased 10 years before his death; the children, two of whom were executors, voted to bury their father in the plot where they said he had verbally expressed he wished to be buried. The trial judge found for defendants, but the appellate court reverses, concluding that the adult children violated the Cemetery Act by burying the decedent in a plot owned by their paternal grandmother, depriving the widow of the right to determine the disposition of the remains of her husband of 27 years. The trial judge, in fact, found that the statute was violated. However, she analyzed the widow's request to disinter and relocate the body to her plot under N.J.S.A. 45:27-23 without consideration of the potential impact of N.J.S.A. 45:27-22. Even if the defendants were totally credible (which she found they were not), the decedent's orally-expressed preference does not outweigh all of the other factors that strongly favor disinterment. Under the proper balancing analysis, the widow clearly established good cause.  Marino v. Marino, Jr., et al., New Jersey App. Div., February 19, 2008

 

EDGEWATER NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER PALIMONY

In an appeal by the decedent's wife, the Appellate Division reverses the trial court order that imposed a constructive trust on the wife's share of the decedent's intestate estate in favor of the decedent's companion, with whom the decedent had lived since shortly after his estrangement from his wife 40 years before. This was because (1) the evidence was sufficient to establish a question of fact as to whether there was an implied promise by the decedent to ensure that the companion would receive adequate provision during the remainder of her life and (2) the trial court erred by relying on the equitable principle of constructive trust and should have relied on contract principles.    In Re Estate of Quarg, ___ N.J. Super. ___(App. Div. 2008); January 21, 2008

FORT LEE NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE ATTORNEY

The daughter sued her father over the settlement proceeds received from the death of the father's wife [the daughter's mother]. Although the father asserts that the monies were pooled for family purposes pursuant to an agreement reached with his children, the court finds that the facts belie any purported "pooling," thereby abrogating any alleged agreement. Moreover, the defendant is judicially estopped from relying on the validity of the claimed "pooling" agreement. The existence of such an agreement is inconsistent with a certification he provided to the court in a prior legal proceeding. Finally, whether the father acted in a fiduciary role and/or in accord with a confidential relationship with his daughter and her siblings, his use and retention of the funds cannot be countenanced. The court grants plaintiff's application to impose a constructive trust upon the defendant's funds.        Vecchiarelli v. Vecchiarelli, New Jersey Ch. Div., January 9, 2008

MILLBURN NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The father of a deceased child need not have supported that child during her lifetime to qualify as a parent to take from the child's estate under New Jersey intestacy laws. Although the Family Part has the equitable authority to grant retroactive child support even where no claim for child support had been made during a child's lifetime, the circumstances in this case were not sufficient to warrant retroactive child support after the child's death.    I/M/O Rogiers, Deceased, New Jersey App. Div.; ___N.J. Super.___ (App. Div. 2007); 2007 WL 3070972; October 24, 2007

BERGEN COUNTY PROBATE

The children challenged the decedent’s will dated April 19, 2001 and a number of inter vivos gifts, due to undue influence by their stepmother and lack of testamentary capacity. The court set aside one gift but denied the remainder of the children’s request for relief. The decedent was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in September 2000, and died in December 2004; the court concluded that there was no competent evidence that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity during any time relevant to the formulation or execution of his estate plan and that he had not become "so enfeebled as to have rendered his free will susceptible to being overcome" by the stepmother’s influence until sometime after April 2001. So the court rejected the challenge to the will and to the decedent’s conveyance of real property on April 16, 2001. But the decedent’s change of beneficiary to the stepmother on three separate IRAs in May 2002 was set aside because the stepmother was unable to rebut the presumption of undue influence.     In Re Estate of Prochazka, New Jersey Ch. Div., May 9, 2007

HUDSON COUNTY MEDIATION

The daughter challenged her deceased mother's testamentary capacity. Further, she claimed the executrix under the will (the mother's niece) had exerted undue influence on the mother. Although there was a confidential relationship between decedent and her niece, shifting the burden to defendant to disprove undue influence, the judge found the niece met that burden. While decedent wanted the niece to get her an attorney, and the niece did not do so, but bought a "do-it-yourself" will kit, all witnesses testified the decedent was strong-willed and did not change her mind once she made it up. The witnesses also testified the decedent was disappointed in her daughter for not spending more time with her granddaughter; and she had said on a number of occasions she wanted to split her estate 50/50 between plaintiff and the granddaughter, exactly what was provided for in the will. Undue influence was properly rejected.       I/M/O Estate of Rubino, New Jersey App. Div., May 1, 2007

SHORT HILLS MEDIATION

In this case concerning the disposition of joint bank accounts on the death of one of the parties to the account, the panel affirms the trial court’s judgment, agreeing with 4 of decedent’s 5 daughters and finding that the balance of certain joint accounts established by the decedent with her 5th daughter are the property of her estate, to be distributed equally among the 5 daughters according to her will. The panel rejects the 5th daughter’s claim that the accounts gave a right of survivorship to her, and that, at decedent’s death, the accounts belonged to her exclusively. The trial court aptly found that the 5th daughter (1) had a confidential relationship with the decedent; (2) had to rebut the presumption that decedent’s creation of the joint accounts was the product of undue influence; and (3) had failed to do so.    I/M/O Estate of Balgar, New Jersey App. Div., April 17, 2007

HACKENSACK DIVORCE

In this litigation between siblings over the assets of their 96-year-old mother, who designated them both co-attorneys-in-fact under a durable Power of Attorney, the appellate panel affirms the orders of the trial judge who, after an accounting, removed the daughter as attorney-in-fact and allowed the appointed guardian ad litem for the mother to negotiate a settlement with the son, so that the mother's estate would not be burdened by the cost of her children's dispute.      Webb, etc. v. Webb, Jr., New Jersey App. Div., February 28, 2007