New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog
The Queens County Surrogate’s Court considered whether an executor could evict fellow beneficiaries from estate property in order to sell the property. In Matter of Pisarik, the court examined the limits of an executor’s authority when beneficiaries become co-owners of inherited real estate and whether estate administration justified removing those occupants from the property.
Background
Michael Roma died in 2022, leaving a will that was later admitted to probate. His primary asset was a two-family home located in Corona, Queens. Under the residuary clause of the will, the property passed in equal shares to the decedent’s niece, Ramona Taveras Pisarik, who also served as executor, and to the decedent’s longtime tenants and friends, Maria Castillo and Santo Castillo.
Maria and Santo had lived in one apartment of the home for many years before the decedent’s death and continued living there afterward. Ramona did not reside at the property and made clear that she did not wish to remain a co-owner.
The executor filed a proceeding seeking a judgment of possession and an order ejecting Maria, Santo, and their family from the property so that it could be sold and the proceeds distributed under the will.
During the litigation, the parties attempted to negotiate a buyout of the executor’s ownership interest, but negotiations ultimately failed.
Issue
May an executor evict co-owner beneficiaries from inherited real property simply because the executor wishes to sell the property?
Holding
No. The Surrogate’s Court denied the executor’s request because she failed to establish that selling the property was necessary to satisfy estate debts or obligations.
Discussion
The court first explained that when a will leaves real property through the residuary estate rather than specifically devising it to a particular beneficiary, ownership generally passes to the residuary beneficiaries immediately upon the decedent’s death.
As a result, Maria, Santo, and Ramona all became co-owners of the property when Mr. Roma died.
The court recognized that executors possess authority under the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law to sell estate property when necessary to pay debts, taxes, administration expenses, or other estate obligations. In appropriate circumstances, that authority may include removing occupants if doing so is necessary to complete a sale that benefits the estate.
However, the executor bears the burden of proving that such action is actually necessary.
Here, the executor submitted only a handwritten ledger and copies of various bills and receipts in an attempt to show that the estate required the property to be sold. The court found that much of the claimed expenses were unsupported, questionable, or incurred after the decedent’s death while all three beneficiaries already owned the property together.
The court also noted that the respondents had already tendered approximately $15,000 toward estate administration expenses, further weakening the executor’s claim that a forced sale was required to satisfy estate obligations.
Because the executor failed to submit admissible evidence establishing the amount of legitimate estate debts or demonstrating that the property had to be sold to administer the estate, the court concluded that she had not met her burden for summary judgment.
The court observed that the dispute had evolved into a disagreement among living co-owners rather than a true estate administration issue. The executor did not wish to continue owning property with the respondents, while the respondents had been unable or unwilling to purchase her interest.
Under those circumstances, the court concluded that the appropriate remedy was not an ejectment proceeding in Surrogate’s Court but, if necessary, a partition action in Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the court denied the executor’s motion, dismissed the ejectment proceeding, and did so without prejudice to any party seeking partition of the property in Supreme Court.
Conclusion
Matter of Pisarik illustrates that an executor’s authority to sell estate property is not unlimited once beneficiaries become co-owners of inherited real estate. When beneficiaries acquire ownership interests upon the decedent’s death, an executor seeking to remove them from the property must demonstrate that a sale is necessary to satisfy legitimate estate obligations. If the dispute is simply among co-owners who cannot agree on the future of the property, a partition action in Supreme Court, rather than an ejectment proceeding in Surrogate’s Court, may be the appropriate legal remedy. If you have questions about administering estate property, resolving disputes among beneficiaries, or protecting your rights during probate, an experienced Queens probate lawyer can evaluate your circumstances and help determine the appropriate legal course of action.