The Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County, addressed whether nominated co-executors who were unable to work together should continue administering a multimillion-dollar estate.
Background
Alicia H. Pachis died in July 2020 at the age of 94. She never married, had no children, and left a will making numerous charitable bequests. The will nominated Leonard Sammarco and attorney Reginald Asiedu as co-executors.
Many people assume that a deed does not become effective until it is recorded with the county clerk. In New York, that is not always true. While recording a deed is important because it protects the new owner’s rights against future purchasers, an unrecorded deed may still be valid between the people involved if it was properly signed, delivered, and otherwise meets the legal requirements for transferring real estate.
In Matter of Cruz, the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court considered whether a man became the owner of a home through an unrecorded deed that the deceased owner had signed and delivered during her lifetime.
Challenging a will in New York requires more than simply believing that the will does not reflect what a loved one wanted. The person contesting the will must present evidence supporting legally recognized grounds, such as lack of mental capacity, undue influence, fraud, or improper execution. In Matter of Sparozic, the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court considered whether two daughters had presented enough evidence to require a trial after they challenged their father’s will.
Jean Sparozic died in January 2020, leaving behind three daughters: Wendy Dirkes, Jill Morrison, and Suzy Sparozic. In 2022, Wendy asked the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court to admit her father’s 2013 will to probate. Probate is the legal process of proving that a will is valid and giving the executor authority to administer the estate.
When a will is challenged, people sometimes assume that the case must go to trial if one of the witnesses cannot remember signing the will. However, New York law recognizes that witnesses may forget events that happened years earlier. A lack of memory alone does not necessarily make a will invalid. In Matter of Malan, the Appellate Division, Second Department, considered whether a will should be admitted to probate when one of the witnesses could not remember the signing ceremony.
After Roy Mark Malan died, a petition was filed in the Westchester County Surrogate’s Court asking that his will be admitted to probate. One of the beneficiaries objected to the will. She argued that the will had not been properly executed and that the decedent lacked the mental capacity to make a valid will. The person seeking probate asked the court to decide the case without a trial by granting summary judgment. The Surrogate’s Court agreed, dismissed the objections, and admitted the will to probate. The objecting beneficiary appealed.
When a trust is being administered, the court’s primary concern is protecting the interests of the trust beneficiaries. If a parent tries to act on behalf of a child in a trust proceeding but has financial interests that conflict with the child’s interests, the court may decide that the parent cannot represent the child.
In Matter of Barton, the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court considered whether a mother involved in a divorce could participate in a trust accounting proceeding on behalf of her minor child while simultaneously claiming that the trust’s assets actually belonged to the marital estate.
When married couples own property together, questions sometimes arise about who is entitled to the proceeds if the property is sold shortly before one spouse dies. Those disputes can become even more complicated when the money is deposited into only one spouse’s account and conflicting estate plans exist.
In Matter of Mantia, the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court considered whether the estate of a deceased wife was entitled to proceeds from the sale of a cooperative apartment that had been deposited into her husband’s account shortly before his death. The court also considered whether a constructive trust should be imposed to prevent the husband’s estate from keeping money that belonged to his wife’s estate.
An executor is responsible for collecting and protecting estate assets, paying valid debts and expenses, keeping accurate financial records, and providing beneficiaries with a complete accounting of how estate assets have been managed. Because an executor serves as a fiduciary, the law requires the executor to act honestly, avoid conflicts of interest, and always act in the best interests of the estate and its beneficiaries. Matter of Carbone examined what can happen when beneficiaries claim that an executor failed to meet those fiduciary responsibilities.
Mike Carbone was named as executor of his father’s estate. After his father died, the main beneficiaries, Debra Betz and Christina Carbone-Lopez, repeatedly asked him to provide an accounting showing what estate assets had been collected, how they had been managed, and how estate money had been spent.
When a will names two executors, both are responsible for administering the estate. But what happens if one executor dies before the estate has been fully settled? Does the surviving executor have to return to the Surrogate’s Court to obtain new Letters Testamentary, or can the executor continue handling the estate using the authority already granted?
This question can arise during the sale of estate property or other transactions when a bank, title company, or another third party insists on additional court documents before allowing the transaction to proceed. Matter of Federico addressed whether a surviving co-executor needed new Letters Testamentary after the other co-executor died during the administration of the estate.
Sometimes more than one will is found after a person dies. Although the most recent valid will usually controls how the estate is distributed, there are situations where everyone involved agrees that an earlier will should be used instead. In Matter of Hayes, the Nassau County Surrogate’s Court considered whether an earlier will could be admitted to probate when all interested parties agreed and doing so would better carry out the decedent’s estate plan.
Arthur M. Hayes died in 2009, leaving behind his wife and their three sons. Because his wife suffered from dementia, the Surrogate’s Court appointed a guardian ad litem, an attorney whose job was to protect her interests during the probate proceeding. The decedent’s sons initially asked the court to admit a will that Mr. Hayes signed in 1990. Later, they changed course and asked the court to admit an earlier will that he had signed in 1982 instead.
In Graffeo v. Paciello, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed whether a brother could force the sale of a Brooklyn property held with his sister as tenants in common. The case involved a long-standing dispute over ownership, control, and whether restrictions in a recorded deed could block a partition action.
Background Facts
In 1976, the siblings’ maternal grandmother transferred full ownership of a three-family dwelling in Brooklyn to her granddaughter, Debra Carol Paciello. Two years later, in 1978, Debra transferred the property to herself and her brother, Louis Anthony Graffeo, as tenants in common. The deed included a restriction that the property could not be sold or transferred during their mother’s lifetime unless she consented. After their mother passed away, both siblings had to agree to any sale or transfer, unless she had removed the restriction before her death.
