New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog
In New York probate proceedings, not every family member has the right to object to a will. A person must have standing, meaning that the person must show that probate of the will would negatively affect his or her financial interest in the estate. In Matter of Kelman, the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court considered whether a son of the decedent could object to probate when he would receive more under the will than he would receive if there were no will. The court held that because the objectant was not financially harmed by the will, he lacked standing to object.
Background facts
May Kelman died on January 25, 2018. She was survived by three children, Robert Kelman, Peter Kelman, and Edith Kelman. She was also survived by three grandchildren who were the children of her predeceased son, Michael Kelman.
The Public Administrator of Suffolk County filed a petition to probate a will dated September 28, 2007. Under that will, the decedent left $50,000 to her grandson David Kelman, $50,000 to her daughter-in-law, and the residuary estate to her three surviving children in equal shares.
Peter Kelman filed objections to probate. He also filed motions seeking broader discovery and production of documents from Robert Kelman and attorney Miles Anderson.
Robert Kelman cross-moved to dismiss Peter’s objections. He argued that Peter lacked standing under SCPA 1410 because Peter would receive more under the will than he would receive if the estate passed by intestacy.
Issue
Could Peter Kelman object to probate of the will if he would receive a larger share under the will than he would receive if the will were denied probate?
Holding
No. The court held that Peter lacked standing to object because he was not adversely affected by probate of the will. Since Peter would receive a one-third share of the residuary estate under the will, which was greater than the one-quarter share he would receive through intestacy, he had no financial interest that would be harmed by probate.
Discussion
The court focused on SCPA 1410, which provides that only a person whose interest in the estate would be adversely affected by probate may file objections to a will.
This rule is practical. A will contest is not available simply because a person disagrees with the will, suspects misconduct, or wants discovery into family financial issues. The person objecting must show that probate of the will would reduce or harm that person’s own financial interest.
Here, the estate assets marshalled by the Public Administrator exceeded $2 million. Under the propounded will, Peter would receive one-third of the residuary estate after two $50,000 specific bequests. If the will were denied probate and the estate passed by intestacy, Peter would receive only a one-quarter share.
Because Peter stood to receive more under the will than without it, the court found that he was not adversely affected by probate. As a result, he lacked standing to object.
Peter argued that Robert’s alleged misconduct gave him standing. He claimed that Robert destroyed an earlier will, drafted the 2007 will, unduly influenced the decedent, and engaged in misconduct involving estate assets. Christopher Kelman also argued that Robert’s alleged mismanagement may have caused approximately $1.4 million in estate assets to be missing.
The court rejected those arguments as grounds for standing in the probate proceeding. Claims that estate assets were mismanaged, diverted, or unaccounted for may be relevant in an accounting proceeding. They do not create standing to object to probate when the objectant is not financially harmed by the will itself.
The court also rejected Peter’s argument that he had standing because the court previously allowed discovery. The court explained that issuing a discovery order did not decide the issue of standing.
The court further noted that a prior 1990 will did not give Peter standing. The original of that will was not on file, and the dispositive provisions appeared to be the same as intestacy. Therefore, Peter still did not show that he would receive more if the 2007 will were denied probate.
Because Peter lacked standing, the court dismissed his objections. Once those objections were dismissed, the remaining discovery motions became moot.
Conclusion
Matter of Kelman shows that standing is a threshold issue in New York probate contests. A person cannot object to a will unless probate would adversely affect that person’s financial interest in the estate. Allegations of misconduct, missing assets, or disputes among family members may need to be addressed in another proceeding, such as an accounting, but they do not create standing to challenge a will when the objectant benefits more under the will than through intestacy. Anyone involved in a will contest, heirship dispute, or estate accounting issue should speak with an experienced New York probate attorney to understand which claims can be raised and in which proceeding.