Articles Posted in Probate & Estate Litigation

In the intricate landscape of estate administration, the case of Douglas A. Bender’s intestate demise brings to light the complexities surrounding wrongful death claims and the allocation of settlement proceeds. This blog delves into the details of the case, exploring the legal intricacies, orders of the court, and the pivotal role of attorneys in navigating this challenging terrain.

Background Facts

In 2011, Douglas A. Bender passed away without leaving a will, leaving his spouse, Bonnie Bender, and four children as surviving family members. To manage the affairs of the estate, Limited Letters of Administration were granted to Bonnie on June 25, 2012. The only asset of the estate was a wrongful death claim initiated by Douglas and Bonnie due to asbestos exposure.

Contested probate proceedings often unravel complex familial dynamics and legal intricacies, and the case at hand is no exception. In this case that was heard by the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, the issue of fraud and undue influence in the execution of Maria Capuano’s will was at issue.

Undue influence in New York refers to a situation where an individual exerts improper and overwhelming pressure on a  testator, to the extent that it compromises the testator’s free will and independent decision-making regarding the distribution of their assets in a will. In probate cases, a claim of undue influence may arise when there are allegations that a person in a position of trust and confidence with the testator, such as a family member or caregiver, manipulated or coerced the testator into making specific provisions in their will that they may not have otherwise chosen.

To establish undue influence in New York, it must be demonstrated that the influence exerted amounted to a form of moral coercion, restraining the testator’s independent action and destroying their free agency. This could involve importunity that the testator could not resist, compelling them to make decisions against their true desires. The burden of proof typically rests on the party challenging the will, and they must provide clear and convincing evidence of the undue influence exercised during the testamentary process

The intricacies of wrongful death settlements often unravel in unforeseen ways, as evidenced by Matter of Buscemi, 32 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006), a case that developed following the death Lorraine C. Buscemi’s tragic demise.

A wrongful death compromise arises when an individual’s demise results from another party’s wrongful act. In such cases, the court not only determines the amount awarded to the plaintiff but also grapples with the allocation of funds between wrongful death and personal injury claims. Damages linked to wrongful death exclusively benefit the decedent’s distributees, addressing their pecuniary losses. Conversely, damages for personal injury and pain and suffering are typically allocated through the estate, subject to the decedent’s will or intestate succession laws. This allocation intricacy necessitates a careful examination of the unique circumstances surrounding the case to ensure just and equitable distribution.

Background Facts

Undue influence in the context of probate refers to the exertion of improper pressure or coercion that significantly impacts an individual’s free will in executing a will or trust. It involves manipulating the testator to make provisions that they may not have otherwise made, undermining their independent decision-making. The legal standard requires a showing that the influencer’s actions amounted to moral coercion, restraining the testator’s autonomy and compelling them to act against their true intentions.

In In re DiDomenico 101 A.D.3d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012), the Surrogate’s Court in Westchester County faced an appeal from objectants challenging the admission of the decedent’s will to probate. The case revolved around allegations of undue influence in the execution of the will, with objectants contending that the petitioner, Maria Maiorano, exerted improper influence over the decedent, Frank DiDomenico.

Background Facts

A contested will refers to a legal situation where disagreements arise among heirs or beneficiaries regarding the validity or terms of a deceased person’s will. Such disputes often involve challenges to the will’s authenticity, claims of undue influence, coercion, or disputes over the rightful distribution of assets. When individuals contest a will, they typically bring their objections before a court, seeking resolution and clarification on matters such as inheritance rights. The legal process involves examining evidence, witness testimonies, and relevant documents to determine the validity of the contested will and ensure a fair distribution of the deceased person’s estate.

Matter of Gadziala, 2017 NY Slip Op 50123(U) revolves around the contested probate of Barney M. Gadziala, Jr.’s will. Five siblings survive him, with Michael and John nominated as co-executors. Mary Ann Gadziala, one of the siblings, raises objections, alleging undue influence in the will’s drafting and challenging Michael and John’s qualifications as fiduciaries.

Background Facts

When someone dies due to the negligence of another person or entity, a determination must be made as to whether settlement amounts are due to wrongful death or pain and suffering. Amounts that are allocated to “wrongful death” are owed to the decedent’s heirs, while amounts allocated to “pain and suffering” are allocated to the decedent’s estate.

Wrongful death allocations includes financial and emotional impacts, such as lost financial support and companionship. On the other hand, pain and suffering allocations focus on the conscious pain and suffering experienced by the deceased before their death. This compensation aims to address the physical and mental distress endured by the individual as a result of the negligent actions leading to their demise. It considers the anguish, torment, and discomfort the deceased faced during the period between the injury-causing event and their death.

Courts often employ specific formulas to allocate settlement proceeds between these categories, ensuring a fair distribution that reflects the unique circumstances of each case. Attorneys play a crucial role in presenting evidence and arguments to substantiate the extent of both wrongful death and pain and suffering damages. This distinction recognizes the multifaceted nature of loss in cases of wrongful death, encompassing both financial and emotional dimensions.

The case revolves around the contested probate of Santine Porpora’s last will and testament, dated March 14, 2011. The petitioner, John Porpora, seeks to probate the will, while Jan Porpora and Decedent’s grandchildren, Nicole Wagner and Jenny Eisenhauer object, alleging undue influence.

Background Facts

Santine Porpora, the decedent, passed away on August 16, 2018, leaving a contested last will and testament dated March 14, 2011 (the “March 2011 Will”). This document allocated specific bequests of $5,000.00 each to five grandchildren and divided the residue of the estate evenly between the decedent’s son, John Porpora, and daughter, Jan Porpora. John Porpora, as the petitioner, seeks to probate the March 2011 Will, while Jan Porpora and the grandchildren (Objectants) jointly filed objections based on the alleged undue influence exerted by John Porpora during the will’s execution.

In re Eastman involves the issue of undue influence. Undue influence refers to the exertion of improper or coercive pressure on the testator (the person making the will), influencing them to make decisions that go against their own free will and desires. It involves a level of manipulation that overcomes the testator’s independent judgment, leading to a will that reflects the influencer’s wishes rather than the true intentions of the testator.

Undue influence can manifest in various ways, such as isolating the testator from family and friends, exploiting a position of trust or confidence, or using tactics that instill fear or dependency. For example, a caregiver, close friend, or family member might attempt to unduly influence a vulnerable testator by controlling access to them, limiting communication with others, or even making threats. Financial dependence, declining health, or emotional vulnerability of the testator may increase susceptibility to such influence.

To prove undue influence in the context of a will contest, the objectant typically needs to demonstrate that the influencer’s actions rose to the level of moral coercion, destroying the testator’s free agency. This may involve presenting evidence of manipulation, isolation, or other tactics that compromised the testator’s ability to make independent decisions regarding the distribution of their assets.

In re Rottkamp, 95 A.D.3d 1338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) is about a contested probate case, centered on the last will and testament of Jacob H. Rottkamp. The objectant, Janis Rottkamp, challenges the probate, alleging lack of due execution, the decedent’s lack of testamentary capacity, and the influence of fraud and undue influence.

In New York, proper execution of a will involves specific legal requirements. The testator (the person making the will) must be at least 18 years old and of sound mind. The will must be in writing, signed by the testator at the end, or if the testator is unable to sign, someone else can do so in their presence and at their direction. At least two witnesses, who are not beneficiaries, must sign the will within 30 days of each other and in the testator’s presence. Failure to adhere to these requirements can jeopardize the validity of the will.

Lack of testamentary capacity refers to the legal requirement that a person, at the time of making a will, must possess the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions. In the context of wills, testamentary capacity involves the ability to comprehend the extent of one’s property, recognize the natural objects of one’s bounty, and understand the distribution being made in the will. If a testator lacks testamentary capacity, the validity of the will may be challenged.