New Jersey Divorce & Family Law: Dissipation of Marital Property

Marital fault on the part of one spouse is not one of the factors that may properly be taken into account in determining equitable distribution of marital assets in a given case. However, by statute, the court is required to consider “the contribution of each party to the acquisition, dissipation, preservation, depreciation or appreciation in the amount or value of the marital property.” Although the term “dissipation” is not defined in the statute, and “is not susceptible to a precise definition,” case law reveals that “the concept is a plastic one, suited to fit the demands of the individual case.”

Generally, “dissipation” may exist where one spouse utilizes marital property for his or her own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage relationship was in serious jeopardy – the facts and circumstances in a particular case must be analyzed to determine whether a given course of conduct constitutes dissipation as contemplated by the statute. Where one party spends marital funds extravagantly or to his or her own benefit, the amount of property available for distribution by the court will obviously be diminished; however, each spouse is generally vested with the authority to spend marital funds for his or her own enjoyment until such time as the parties are contemplating a divorce. As discussed in detail in Kothari v. Kothari, dissipation of marital assets involves an attempt to reconcile these conflicting interests in the marital estate.

In the Kothari matter, the Defendant/Husband sent thousands of dollars to his parents in India, which he asserted was to satisfy his moral obligation to repay money he received from them to finance his medical education and initial passage from India. Although Plaintiff/Wife knew that marital money was being sent, it was clear to the court that she objected to this arrangement. The trial court concluded that, although the parties had accumulated essentially nothing during the marriage, the parties’ funds acquired during the marriage “went somewhere” and, therefore, Plaintiff/Wife was entitled to enjoy a fifty-percent (50%) interest in those assets.

On appeal, the Appellate Division noted that several factors must be considered when one party asserts that marital assets have been dissipated including (1) the proximity of the expenditures to the parties’ separation, (2) whether the expenditure was typical of expenditures made by the parties prior to the breakdown of the marriage, (3) whether the expenditures benefitted the “joint” marital enterprise or were for the benefit of one spouse to the exclusion of the other, and (4) the need for and amount of the expenditure. In affirming the trial court’s determination as to dissipation, the Appellate Division found it clear that the expenditures were not made to benefit the marital enterprise, served only Defendant/Husband’s personal interest, and were designed to divert from Plaintiff/Wife her equitable share of the marital assets. The Appellate Division also determined that, although the marital funds may not have been “in existence” at the filing date of the Complaint for Divorce, a finding of dissipation may necessitate that the asset subject to distribution take the form of a cash indebtedness to be imposed by the court upon one spouse in favor of the other. In regards to marital fault, the Appellate Division approved the trial court’s consideration of Defendant/Husband’s abandonment and callous disregard of his family, not because the conduct reflected marital fault, but because the conduct revealed an intent to deny Plaintiff/Wife her share of marital assets.

Whether or not marital assets have been “dissipated” as contemplated by the statute depends upon the facts and circumstances in a particular case. If you have any questions in regards to divorce in New Jersey, dissipation claims as to marital assets, equitable distribution, or any aspect of family law, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. / Timothy J. Little, P.C. / 2017 – All Rights Reserved



Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, Esq. and Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. represent individuals, families and businesses throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Holmdel, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County (Brick, Jackson, Toms River), Somerset County, and Burlington County. If you have any questions or concerns regarding family law or divorce, please contact the attorneys at Timothy J. Little, P.C.

Family Law Practice Areas:
Divorce, equitable distribution of assets and liabilities, alimony, domestic violence, child custody, child support, parenting time, emancipation applications, removal applications, Marital Settlement Agreements, post-judgment enforcement and modification applications

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-divorce-family-law-dissipation-of-marital-property/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/location/middlesex-county/old-bridge-nj-attorney/old-bridge-new-jersey-divorce-family-law-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/location/monmouth-county/holmdel-nj-attorney/holmdel-new-jersey-divorce-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: What is Notice of Probate?

Pursuant to the Rules of Court, the personal representative of an estate is required to mail, within sixty (60) days of the probate of a will, notice in writing that the will has been probated. The “notice of probate” must be sent to the decedent’s spouse, heirs, next of kin, other persons (if any) entitled to letters, and all beneficiaries under the will. Such notice must also contain additional information including, but not limited to, the place and date of probate and the name and address of the personal representative. Within ten (10) days of mailing, proper proof of same must be filed with the Surrogate.

If the name or address of anyone entitled to notice of probate is not known, or cannot by reasonable inquiry be determined, then it may be necessary to publish the notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county naming or identifying those persons as having a possible interest in the probate estate. Additionally, in the event that any property in the will is devoted to a present or future charitable use or purpose, like notice must be mailed to the Office of the Attorney General. In this instance, the Attorney General is entitled to a copy of the will with the notice, and it may be necessary to continually involve the Office of the Attorney General in the administration of the estate.

Although failure to provide the necessary notice of probate will ordinarily not render the probate judgment void, failure to provide the required notice could be of significant consequence, especially in the event of a will contest.

Because estate administration, estate litigation, and Will contests require particular knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, your or your loved one’s Power of Attorney, suspicions of undue influence, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for removing an executor or administrator from office. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

 

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq.  /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  -  2017  -  All Rights Reserved

Probate / Estate Practice Areas: Will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, undue influence claims, Power of Attorney abuse and inter vivos gift disputes, drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, actions to compel an inventory, actions to remove a fiduciary, insolvency petitions, ejectment and eviction from estate or trust property, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)

 

 

Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. represents clients throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Howell, Freehold, Colts Neck, Rumson), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County (Jackson, Brick, Point Pleasant, Toms River), Somerset County, and Burlington County (Chesterfield).

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-what-is-notice-of-probate/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/will-contest-estate-litigation-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/

 

New Jersey Probate & Estate Administration: What Is Intestacy?

Pursuant to the New Jersey Probate Code, any part of a decedent’s estate not effectively disposed of by his or her Will passes by “intestate succession” to the decedent’s heirs. The intestate succession statutes provide rules and procedures for the disposition of the estate of an individual who pass away without an effective Will, and act as an “estate plan provided by law” to transfer the decedent’s property.

For decedent’s dying on or after September 1, 1978, the intestate share of the surviving spouse or domestic partner may be the entire estate, or a varying percentage of the estate, depending upon whether there are surviving descendants or parents of the decedent, and whether any of the decedent’s surviving descendants are not descendants of the surviving spouse. Any part of the intestate estate that does not pass to the decedent’s surviving spouse or domestic partner, or the entire estate if there is no surviving spouse or domestic partner, passes in the following order to the individuals designated below who survive the decedent:

1. To the decedent’s descendants by representation;
2. If there are no surviving descendants, to the decedent’s parents equally or to the surviving parent;
3. If no surviving descendants or parents, to the descendants of the decedent’s parents or either of them by representation;
4. If no surviving descendant, parent, or descendant of a parent, to the decedent’s grandparents as specified by the statute with reference to the maternal and paternal side,
5. If none of the above, to the descendants of the decedent’s grandparents depending upon the “degree of kinship,”
6. Or, if none of the above, to the decedent’s step-children or their descendants by representation.

As can be imagined, it is not always a simple process to determine how, or in what shares, a decedent’s estate will be distributed in accordance with the laws of intestacy; however, the New Jersey Probate Code contemplates most complications within the family unit – for example, the intestacy statutes address the disposition of an estate where “relatives of the half blood,” after-born heirs, or adopted children are involved, where the names and addresses of potential heirs are unknown, or where there is a dispute regarding the paternity of the decedent or descendant of the decedent. It is important to point out that the intestacy laws are applied without discretion –for example, the law does not consider whether or not you got along with (or you ever met) the heir who may be a beneficiary of your intestate estate.

Avoiding the laws of intestacy, and some of the bizarre results that may occur upon application of the statutes, is one of the many reasons why you should have a competent attorney prepare your Will. Having a Will is not only important for the elderly or people with wealth – if you are over the age of eighteen (18), you should have a Will, regardless of whether or not you have assets.

Because estate administration, estate litigation, and Will contests require particular knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, your or your loved one’s Power of Attorney, suspicions of undue influence, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for removing an executor or administrator from office. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved

Probate / Estate Practice Areas: Will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, undue influence claims, Power of Attorney abuse and inter vivos gift disputes, drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, actions to compel an inventory, actions to remove a fiduciary, insolvency petitions, ejectment and eviction from estate or trust property, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-administration-what-is-intestacy/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/will-contest-estate-litigation-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/location/middlesex-county/old-bridge-nj-attorney/old-bridge-new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/

New Jersey Child Custody: Removal of a Child from New Jersey in Light of Bisbing v. Bisbing

Following a divorce, removal of a minor child from the State of New Jersey by the custodial parent is governed by N.J.S.A. 9:2-2, which, in pertinent part, provides:

When the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the custody and maintenance of the minor children of parents divorced, separated or living separate, and such children are natives of this State, or have resided five years within its limits, they shall not be removed out of its jurisdiction against their own consent, if of suitable age to signify the same, nor while under that age without the consent of both parents, unless the court, upon cause shown, shall otherwise order.   [emphasis added]

On August 8, 2017, the New Jersey Supreme Court re-addressed the legal standard for interstate relocation with a child. Pursuant to Bisbing v. Bisbing, the landmark Baures standard for relocation applications was upended – in determining the outcome of contested relocation applications pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 in which the parents share legal custody, the Court should now conduct a best-interests analysis to determine whether “cause” exists under the statute. The “best interests” standard should be conducted whether the custody arrangement designates a parent of primary residence and a parent of alternate residence, or provides for equally shared custody.

 

In Bisbing, the parties agreed to joint legal custody with primary residential custody to the wife so long as she did not remove the children from the State, to live within twenty (20) miles of each other in New Jersey, and that neither party could remove the children from New Jersey without consent of the other party. However, nine (9) months after the Judgment of Divorce, the wife informed her ex-husband that she desired to relocate the children from New Jersey to Utah. In a well-reasoned decision, the Appellate Division determined that a plenary hearing was necessary and, if the negotiation for the non-relocation provision was in bad faith, the more-stringent best-interests-of-the-child standard would apply, as opposed to the Baures factors. On the other hand, if the party alleging bad faith could not demonstrate that bad faith negotiations took place, one of the following tests would be applied: (1) If wife could demonstrate a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances to warrant avoidance of the agreed-upon non-relocation provision, the Baures analysis would be appropriate; or (2) If wife failed to demonstrate a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances, the Court must determine the best interests of the children.

 

Following the Appellate Division’s decision, the wife’s petition for certification was granted, and the New Jersey Supreme Court re-addressed the legal standard for interstate relocation. In deciding to abandon the Baures standard in favor of the more-stringent best-interests analysis, the Supreme Court noted that relocation may affect children in many different ways and also noted the possibility that the Baures standard may lead to unnecessary disputes regarding the designation of the custodial parent. Additionally, the Court determined that N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 does not infringe on the relocating parent’s constitutional right to interstate travel.

 

Prior to August 8, 2017, the landmark decision of Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91, 116 (2001), applied to removal applications. Pursuant to Baures, where a parent already exercised primary custody, he or she only was required to demonstrate (1) a good faith reason for the move, and (2) that the move was not inimical to the child’s interests. As set forth in Baures, in assessing whether an application for removal was made in good faith and whether the move would not be inimical to the child’s best interests, the Court was to consider the following factors: (1) the reasons given for the move; (2) the reasons given for the opposition; (3) the past history of dealings between the parties insofar as it bears on the reasons advanced by both parties for supporting and opposing the move; (4) whether the child will receive educational, health and leisure opportunities at least equal to what is available here; (5) any special needs or talents of the child that require accommodation and whether such accommodation or its equivalent is available in the new location; (6) whether a visitation and communication schedule can be developed that will allow the noncustodial parent to maintain a full and continuous relationship with the child; (7) the likelihood that the custodial parent will continue to foster the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent if the move is allowed; (8) the effect of the move on extended family relationships here and in the new location; (9) if the child is of age, his or her preference; (10) whether the child is entering his or her senior year in high school at which point he or she should generally not be moved until graduation without his or her consent; (11) whether the noncustodial parent has the ability to relocate; and (12) any other factor bearing on the child’s interest.

 

If you have any questions in regards to divorce in New Jersey, alimony, child support, equitable distribution, or family law, you may wish to consult with an experienced family law attorney. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

 

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. / Timothy J. Little, P.C. / 2017 – All Rights Reserved

 

Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. offers specialized legal assistance to individuals, families and businesses throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Hazlet, Aberdeen, Matawan, Middletown, Freehold), Union County, Ocean County, Somerset County, and Burlington County. If you have any questions or concerns regarding family law or divorce, please contact the attorneys at Timothy J. Little, P.C.

 

Family Law Practice Areas:

Divorce, equitable distribution of assets and liabilities, alimony, domestic violence, child custody, child support, parenting time, emancipation applications, removal applications, Marital Settlement Agreements, post-judgment enforcement and modification applications

 

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-child-custody-removal-of-a-child-from-new-jersey-in-light-of-bisbing-v-bisbing/

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/location/middlesex-county/old-bridge-nj-attorney/old-bridge-new-jersey-divorce-family-law-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/location/middlesex-county/old-bridge-nj-attorney/old-bridge-new-jersey-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/

New Jersey Family Law: Responding to the Complaint for Divorce

When served with a Complaint for Divorce, a prospective client will ordinarily ask – “what should I do?” Typically, in a New Jersey divorce, there will be four (4) alternatives:

1. File an “Appearance” in which the allegations requesting the divorce are not contested, but contesting the customary issues of the divorce proceedings;
2. File an “Answer” in which the allegations contained within the Complaint are denied and dismissal of the Complaint for Divorce is requested;
3. File an “Answer and Counterclaim” in which the allegations contained within the Complaint are denied, dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Complaint for Divorce is requested, and a counterclaim for divorce is made whereby the Defendant makes his or her own claims for relief; or
4. Do nothing, which may result in default being entered.

Generally, when service of the Complaint for Divorce is made upon the Defendant, a proper response must be filed within thirty-five (35) days of service, exclusive of the day of service. Although the time for filing and serving a responsive pleading may be extended in some instances by either consent of the parties or by Court Order for good cause shown, a served party should consult with an experienced divorce attorney as soon as possible to determine which form of response is appropriate under the particular circumstances of the case.

The New Jersey Rules of Court permit a Defendant to file a written appearance and, without filing an Answer, be heard as to the issues of alimony, equitable distribution of property, custody and visitation, child support, attorney fees and costs, and other issues incident to the divorce proceedings. Alternatively, a party may wish to file an Answer if he or she desires to contest the grounds for divorce or other collateral issues – the Answer responds to the specific allegations of the Complaint, admitting the allegations that are true, denying those that are false, indicating when he or she does not have knowledge or information to sufficiently respond, and asserting any affirmative defenses. If the party filing an Answer desires any affirmative relief for any cause of action that may exist, he or she may wish to file a Counterclaim.

On the other hand, when a served Defendant fails to file a proper response with the Court, default may be entered. Of course, if a party wishes to be heard as to any issues pertinent to the divorce, he or she should file a timely responsive pleading. However, as explained in Clementi v. Clementi, 434 N.J. Super. 529 (Ch. Div. 2013), by the Honorable Lawrence R. Jones, J.S.C., recently retired of the Ocean County Superior Court, when a Defendant defaults and fails to participate in the divorce proceedings, the Plaintiff is not automatically entitled to all requests he or she has made; rather, the Plaintiff “still has an ongoing obligation to persuade the Court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposal for equitable distribution is fair and equitable under the specific facts of the case.”  Nonetheless, a served party should immediately consult with an experienced divorce attorney as soon as possible to ensure that his or her interests are protected.

If you have any questions in regards to divorce in New Jersey, equitable distribution, or any aspect of family law, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. / Timothy J. Little, P.C. / 2017 – All Rights Reserved

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-family-law-responding-to-the-complaint-for-divorce/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/location/middlesex-county/old-bridge-nj-attorney/old-bridge-new-jersey-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-smigelsky-esq-3a822156

New Jersey Family Law: Irreconcilable Differences as Grounds for Divorce

 

New Jersey law has been gradually evolving to allow for easier termination of “dead marriages” regardless of fault. Fault of either spouse has continued to decrease in significance, while the impact of filing for divorce based upon fault is ordinarily not significant. It is important to note that each divorce matter is different, and it is essential that each case be evaluated based upon its particulars. It is also important to note that, to properly file a complaint for divorce, the jurisdictional requirements must be met and a valid marriage must be in existence at the time of filing.

 Although the New Jersey legislature has expressed its policy to terminate “dead marriages,” merely showing that a marriage is “dead” is not enough for divorce under New Jersey law – the parties and situation must meet specific statutory criteria before a court can terminate the marriage. Pursuant to statute, so long as all of the circumstances permit, a party may be granted a divorce based upon any of the following grounds:

1. Adultery;
2. Willful and continuous desertion for twelve (12) or more months;
3. Extreme cruelty;
4. Separation (separate habitations for at least 18 consecutive months);
5. Voluntary addiction or habituation to narcotics or habitual drunkenness;
6. Institutionalization for mental illness;
7. Imprisonment for eighteen (18) or more consecutive months after marriage;
8. Deviant sexual conduct; and, as is most common,
9. Irreconcilable differences.

Effective January 20, 2007, divorce may be adjudged in New Jersey for irreconcilable differences that have caused the breakdown of the marriage for a period of six (6) months and which make it appear that the marriage should be dissolved and that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. Filing for divorce based upon irreconcilable differences will ordinarily allow the complaint for divorce to be shorter, less intrusive upon the privacy of the parties and, hopefully, will allow the proceedings to be less contentious.  

 

If you have any questions in regards to divorce in New Jersey, equitable distribution, or any aspect of family law, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

 

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. - All Rights Reserved

 

Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, Esq. and Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. represent individuals, families and businesses throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Holmdel, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County (Brick, Jackson, Toms River), Somerset County, and Burlington County. If you have any questions or concerns regarding family law or divorce, please contact the attorneys at Timothy J. Little, P.C.

 

Family Law Practice Areas:   Divorce, equitable distribution of assets and liabilities, alimony, domestic violence, child custody, child support, parenting time, emancipation applications, removal applications, Marital Settlement Agreements, post-judgment enforcement and modification applications

 

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/location/middlesex-county/old-bridge-nj-attorney/old-bridge-new-jersey-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/practice-areas/family-law/

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: Executor’s Power to Compromise, Contest, or Settle Claims

A Last Will and Testament confers upon every executor thereunder, in the absence of a contrary provision in the Will or in a court order, a wide-ranging set of administrative powers authorizing him or her so to act, provided he or she acts in good faith and with reasonable discretion.

Pursuant to the New Jersey Probate Code, unless otherwise limited by judgment, order, or the governing document, an executor, administrator, or trustee shall have the power “[t]o compromise, contest, or otherwise settle any claim in favor of the estate, trust, or fiduciary or in favor of third persons and against the estate, trust, or fiduciary.” As specifically referenced in the statute, this power also applies to New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax, New Jersey or Federal Estate Tax, income or other taxes.

As with the exercise of any power, an executor or administrator must always act “in good faith within the sphere of their powers, and exercise the care, circumspection and judgment of persons of ordinary prudence and sagacity.” Pursuant to New Jersey case law, if the only reasonable action under the circumstances would be to bring action to enforce a claim, the executor is under a duty to bring the action, but, if it is reasonably prudent to pay, release, compromise, or settle the claim, the executor has the power to do so – an executor “may buy the peace of the estate he represents, and extinguish doubtful claims against it, provided he acts discreetly and in good faith.”

In sum, in administering an estate, it is essential that the fiduciary understand the scope of his or her authority, proceed cautiously, and, as permitted by statute, that the fiduciary retain an experienced attorney in the event he or she has any questions or concerns as to whether he or she is taking an appropriate course of action.

Because estate administration, estate litigation, and Will contests require particular knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, your or your loved one’s Power of Attorney, suspicions of undue influence, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for removing an executor or administrator from office. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.


Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved

Probate / Estate Practice Areas:  Will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, undue influence claims, Power of Attorney abuse and inter vivos gift disputes, drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, actions to compel an inventory, actions to remove a fiduciary, insolvency petitions, ejectment and eviction from estate or trust property, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)


Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. represents clients throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Howell, Freehold, Colts Neck, Rumson), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County (Jackson, Brick, Point Pleasant, Toms River), Somerset County, and Burlington County (Chesterfield).

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-executors-power-to-compromise-contest-or-settle-claims/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/location/middlesex-county/old-bridge-nj-attorney/old-bridge-new-jersey-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: “When Will I Receive My Inheritance?”

In administering an estate, beneficiaries of the estate will routinely ask – “when will I receive my inheritance?” The answer, of course, is – “it depends.”

Ordinarily, it will take approximately one year to complete the administration process and, in fact, distribution of an intestate’s property is not supposed to be made prior to the expiration of one year after the granting of administration. Ideally, administration can be completed within this time; however, the exact timeframe is unpredictable based upon numerous factors including the disposition of any real estate, tax issues that may arise, issues with creditors of the estate, and the degree to which any litigation ensues. For example, in the event that an Estate Tax Return must be filed, or judicial intervention becomes necessary, an administration period of two years or more may be necessary.

Pursuant to the New Jersey Probate Code, an executor or administrator is under a duty to settle and distribute the estate “as expeditiously and efficiently as is consistent with the best interests of the estate.” Furthermore, an executor or administrator “shall proceed expeditiously with the settlement and distribution of a decedent’s estate and do so without adjudication, order, or direction of a court, but he may invoke the jurisdiction of a court, in proceedings authorized by law to resolve questions concerning the estate or its administration.”

While it is necessary for the fiduciary to proceed expeditiously, it is essential that he or she observe the requisite standard of care; specifically, that he or she “observe the standards in dealing with the estate assets that would be observed by a prudent man dealing with the property of another.” Also, if the personal representative has special skills or is named personal representative on the basis of representations of special skills or expertise, he or she is under a duty to use those special skills or that expertise. In the event that the fiduciary fails to proceed expeditiously, or fails to properly administer the estate, action to compel settlement of the estate or to remove the fiduciary may be necessary.

Because estate administration, estate litigation, and Will contests require particular knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, your or your loved one’s Power of Attorney, suspicions of undue influence, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for removing an executor or administrator from office. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq.  –  All Rights Reserved

Probate / Estate Practice Areas: Will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, undue influence claims, Power of Attorney abuse and inter vivos gift disputes, drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, actions to compel an inventory, actions to remove a fiduciary, insolvency petitions, ejectment and eviction from estate or trust property, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: Action to Remove an Executor or Administrator

Pursuant to the New Jersey Probate Code, an executor or administrator of an estate, a trustee, a guardian, or an agent under a Power of Attorney may be removed from office for the following reasons:

(A) After due notice of an order or judgment of the Court so directing, he or she neglects or refuses, to timely file an inventory, render an account, or give proper security; 

(B) After due notice of any other order or judgment of the Court made under its proper authority, he neglects or refuses to perform or obey the order or judgment within the time fixed by the court; 

(C) He or she has embezzled, wasted, or misapplied any part of the estate committed to his or her custody, or has abused the trust and confidence reposed in him or her; 

(D) He or she has removed from the State of New Jersey or does not reside therein and neglects or refuses to proceed with the administration of the estate and perform the duties and trust devolving upon him; 

(E) He or she is of unsound mind or mentally incapacitated for the transaction of business; or 

(F) One or two or more fiduciaries has neglected to perform his or her duties or to join with the other fiduciary or fiduciaries in the administration of the estate committed to their care whereby the proper administration and settlement of the estate is or may be hindered or prevented.

New Jersey case law is clear that, when a fiduciary is appointed by Will, removal by the Court will be granted only sparingly and with great caution; generally, Courts are reluctant to remove a fiduciary appointed by Will unless there is “clear and definite proof of fraud, gross carelessness, or indifference.” Furthermore, where the facts for and against removal are disputed, a plenary hearing must be held.

Because estate administration, estate litigation, and Will contests require specialized knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, your or your loved one’s Power of Attorney, suspicions of undue influence, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for removing an executor or administrator from office. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved

Probate / Estate Practice Areas: Will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, undue influence claims, Power of Attorney abuse and inter vivos gift disputes, drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, actions to compel an inventory, actins to remove a fiduciary, insolvency petitions, ejectment and eviction from estate or trust property, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)


Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. represents clients throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Howell, Freehold, Colts Neck, Rumson), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County (Jackson, Brick, Point Pleasant, Toms River), Somerset County, and Burlington County (Chesterfield).

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-action-to-remove-fiduciary/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/location/middlesex-county/old-bridge-nj-attorney/old-bridge-new-jersey-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: Action to Compel Inventory of the Decedent’s Property

Generally, New Jersey law does not require that an Executor or Administrator file an inventory of the decedent’s assets as a matter of course. However, pursuant to the New Jersey Probate Code, the Court may force an Executor or Administrator to file an inventory of all real and personal property of the decedent “which has come to his hands, possession or knowledge or into the hands of any other person for him.”

Procedurally, an application to compel the filing of an inventory is brought in a summary manner by way of verified complaint upon an order to show cause, and is brought in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Probate Part of the same county of appointment. By statute, an application to compel the filing of an inventory by the estate’s personal representative cannot be filed until three (3) months after appointment of the personal representative; however, limited exceptions may apply to this timeframe. Similar to the filing of a fiduciary accounting, an interested party may file exceptions to the inventory of the personal representative; ordinarily, a party may except to the inventory on the basis that the Administrator or Executor failed to include certain property in his or her inventory.

An inventory is intended to notify all interested parties of the assets and liabilities of the estate, and to presumptively fix the values of real and personal property. Therefore, it is necessary that appraisers be designated in accordance with the Probate Code. In any event, it is imperative that the personal representative’s inventory be specific, detailed, and accurately describe all assets, real and personal property, debts owed and claims.

Because estate administration, estate litigation, and Will contests require specialized knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, your or your loved one’s Power of Attorney, suspicions of undue influence, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for filing a formal accounting / inventory or exceptions thereto. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved

Probate / Estate Practice Specialties: Drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, actions to compel an inventory, insolvency petitions, will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, undue influence claims, Power of Attorney abuse and inter vivos gift disputes, ejectment and eviction from estate or trust property, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)


Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. represents clients throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Howell, Freehold, Colts Neck, Rumson), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County (Jackson, Brick, Point Pleasant, Toms River), Somerset County, and Burlington County (Chesterfield).

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-action-to-compel-inventory-of-the-decedents-property/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/practice-areas/estate-administration-and-litigation/

New Jersey Personal Injury Law: Things to Do After a Car Accident

Following an auto / car accident, a prospective client will ordinarily ask, “what should I do?” The following is a general guide as to some of the necessary steps to take if you have been injured in a car accident. It is important to note at the outset that no two cases are alike, and issues regarding insurance coverage, PIP coverage, or compensability of your injuries can be very complex – if you have been injured or have any questions in regards to personal injury law or your car accident, you should immediately consult with an experienced personal injury attorney. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Most importantly, if you have been injured, you should immediately seek necessary medical attention for any injuries sustained. To allow your treatment providers to properly diagnose and treat your injuries, it is necessary to inform any EMS personnel, doctors, nurses, and surgeons of your symptoms and complaints, as well as how the injury occurred. Failure to seek treatment immediately upon injury can obviously have serious consequences on your health – additionally, failure to properly document your injuries and treatment could be harmful to any claim you may have.

It is extremely important that the accident be properly documented and that all necessary information be gathered. Therefore, it is essential to immediately report the accident to the local police department, or to the New Jersey State Police depending upon the location – of course, this assumes that your injuries are not so severe so as to prevent you from doing so, or that you do not require emergency medical attention. Similarly, it is necessary to obtain the name, address, telephone number, license plate number, insurance information, and driver’s license number of everyone involved in the accident and any witnesses, while you should also make note of the weather conditions at that time, any observations of traffic signals or devices, commercial or other markings on any vehicles, and any possible contributing factor to the accident (cell phone usage, pedestrians, odor of alcohol, etc.).

To the extent possible, photographs should be immediately taken of the accident scene, any visible injuries, all vehicles involved, and any property damage. With today’s technology, your cell phone or tablet could be an easily accessible way to preserve this important evidence.

Next, any statements made at or about the time of the accident may be critical to your claims or defense; statements made to first responders, investigating officers, or any medical treatment providers will more-likely-than-not be presented if any claim is made as the result of the accident. Therefore, it is imperative that you exercise the utmost discretion in any statements you make to anybody. Generally, because your words could easily be misinterpreted or twisted against your interests, it is suggested that you not unnecessarily discuss the accident or your injuries with anyone other than your attorney or your treating doctor – insurance companies are notorious for soliciting statements that could later be used against you. On the same note, be sure to consult with your attorney prior to signing any documents.

It is worth noting that New Jersey has a Statute of Limitations that prevents the filing of a personal injury complaint or claim petition for workers’ compensation benefits after two (2) years from the date of the accident in most instances. Furthermore, if you wish to pursue a claim against a public entity or governmental agency, or any employee of a public entity, you must give timely notice of the intent to file a claim, which is ordinarily within ninety (90) days from the date you knew or should have known of the cause of action. Failure to bring a claim within an applicable time period may cause any claim you may have had to be barred forever. Therefore, if you have been injured and wish to seek compensation, it is imperative that you do so immediately upon sustaining injury.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved


Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. represents injured clients throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Howell, Freehold, Colts Neck, Rumson), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth, Linden), Ocean County (Brick, Toms River, Jackson, Point Pleasant), Somerset County, and Burlington County.

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-personal-injury-law-things-to-do-after-a-car-accident/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/practice-areas/personal-injury/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: Who is Entitled to the Joint Bank Account?

Unfortunately, disputes regarding joint bank accounts are very common in New Jersey estate litigation. Oftentimes, joint accounts will be established with an elderly parent for convenience purposes or a joint account will be created with a “right of survivorship” in an effort to make a testamentary disposition (a “poor man’s Will”). Most people, however, fail to understand the significance of jointly owning a bank account or the rights of the surviving owner upon the death of the other owner of the account – this misunderstanding of the law will often result in estate litigation.

Pursuant to New Jersey statute, during the lifetime of all parties, a joint account ordinarily belongs to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit; however, in the event that a contrary intent is manifested by the terms of the contract or deposit agreement, or there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent at the time the account is created, this presumption may be rebutted. But who is entitled to the funds in the joint account upon the death of the other owner?

Generally, pursuant to New Jersey statute, there is a presumption of survivorship on joint bank accounts – upon the death of one of the account owners, the funds in the joint account will belong to the surviving owner unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intention at the time the account was created. As defined by statute, an “account” means a contract of deposit of funds between a depositor and a financial institution, and includes checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, share accounts, and other like arrangements.

In a fairly recent published opinion concerning litigation over joint accounts, Estate of Ostlund v. Ostlund, 391 N.J. Super. 390 (App. Div. 2007), the Appellate Division considered an estate’s right to funds held jointly in an account between the decedent and her son. The Court reiterated that, when the Mutli-Party Deposit Account Act governs the right of survivorship, the funds will belong to the joint owner upon death unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent at the time the account was created. Interestingly, in assessing whether the account should be deemed an estate asset, the Court also analyzed whether undue influence had been exercised in regards to the creation of the account.

It is important to note that, even if a joint owner is entitled to a joint account upon the death of the other owner, if other assets of the estate are insufficient, those funds may be deemed available to satisfy debts, taxes, and expenses of administration. Therefore, it is essential that any action regarding funds in a joint bank account be carefully considered. It is also important to note that, in most cases, a proper estate plan and a properly executed power of attorney document will help to avoid a later dispute as to joint accounts.

Because estate litigation and Will contests require specialized knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding your inheritance, a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, the elective share of a surviving spouse, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, powers of attorney, refunding bonds and releases, undue influence, and the procedures for filing a formal accounting or exceptions thereto. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.
 
Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved
 

Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. represents individuals, families, and businesses throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Freehold, Howell), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County (Jackson, Point Pleasant, Brick, Toms River), Somerset County, and Burlington County (Chesterfield).

Probate / Estate Practice Areas: Drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, insolvency petitions, will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, undue influence, Power of Attorney abuse, ejectment and eviction, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-who-is-entitled-to-the-joint-bank-account/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: Jurisdiction of the Surrogate vs the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Probate Part

Ordinarily, application for the probate of a will, for letters testamentary, or for letters of administration will be filed with the county Surrogate. However, as set forth in the Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey, there are certain matters in which the Surrogate may not act; specifically, unless explicitly authorized by the Superior Court, the Surrogate’s Court shall not act in any matter in which:

1. A caveat has been filed with it before the entry of its judgment;
2. A doubt arises on the face of a will or a will has been lost or destroyed;
3. The application is to admit to probate a writing intended as a will as defined by N.J.S.A. 3B:3-2(b) or N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3;
4. The application is to appoint an administrator pendente lite or other limited administrator;
5. A dispute arises before the Surrogate’s Court as to any matter; or
6. The Surrogate certifies the case to be of doubt or difficulty.

When the Surrogate is prohibited from acting, any person in interest can apply to the Chancery Division, Probate Part for an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. In one of the most-recent decisions to address jurisdiction of probate matters, In re Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275 (2008), the loss of jurisdiction of the Surrogate’s Court once a caveat has been filed was confirmed; specifically, the New Jersey Supreme Court explained:

Although an uncontested, straightforward will may be admitted to probate through the Surrogate’s Court, as distinguished from the Probate Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court, and although letters testamentary or letters of administration may be issued thereon in that forum…if there is a dispute about the will…or if a caveat has been lodged against the will offered or expected to be offered for probate, the Surrogate’s Court is not empowered to act and the issues must instead be resolved through proceedings in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Probate Part…

The Court further explained:

The act of lodging, or filing, the caveat prevents the Surrogate from issuing letters that otherwise would operate so as to authorize a particular individual or entity to begin the administration of the estate and causes the matter to be pursued, generally in a summary matter…in the Probate Part…Alternatively, if a will has already been admitted to probate, it may be challenged by the timely filing of a complaint in the Probate Part.

Accordingly, when the Surrogate does not have or has lost jurisdiction in certain probate matters, it may be necessary to commence proceedings in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Probate Part.

Because probate, estate litigation, and Will contests require specialized knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have any questions regarding your inheritance, a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, the elective share of a surviving spouse, fiduciary obligations, refunding bonds and releases, and preparation or filing of an accounting for the administration of an estate or trust. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. / Timothy J. Little, P.C. / 2017 / All Rights Reserved

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-jurisdiction-of-the-surrogate-vs-the-probate-part/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: Compelling Production of a Last Will & Testament

Any interested party may file an Order to Show Cause and Verified Complaint to compel production of a purported Last Will and Testament or information as to its existence of whereabouts. Pursuant to the New Jersey Probate Code (N.J.S.A. 3B:3-29):

The Superior Court shall have jurisdiction to compel discovery as to the existence or whereabouts of any paper purported to be a will of any decedent who died a resident of the county, which has not been offered for probate, and to require the paper to be lodged with the surrogate of the county for probate.

Pursuant to the Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey, the Court may order any person possessing the Will, or who has knowledge of the Will’s existence or whereabouts, to appear before it and make discovery as to his or her possession or knowledge of the Will or, upon the return date of the Order to Show Cause, enter such Order and take such further proceedings as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances.

Generally, an interested party must allege in the Verified Complaint that:

1. He or she believes that somebody has in his or her possession, or has knowledge of the existence of whereabouts of a paper writing purported to be the Will of the decedent;
2. That the Testator or Testatrix of the Will passed away a resident of the county where filed; and
3. That the individual has neglected or refused to file the Will with the Surrogate of the county.

Under New Jersey case law, the designated executor or executrix in possession of a Will has a duty to either probate the Will or renounce his or her office. It is also worth noting that certain improper conduct with respect to Wills may be a disorderly persons offense or a crime of the third degree in the State of New Jersey. Specifically, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-3 provides:

a. Fraudulent destruction, removal or concealment of recordable instruments. A person commits a crime of the third degree if, with purpose to deceive or injure anyone, he destroys, removes or conceals any will, deed, mortgage, security instrument or other writing for which the law provides public recording.
b. Offering a false instrument for filing. A person is guilty of a disorderly persons offense when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, he offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant.

Because estate litigation and Will contests require specialized knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, the elective share of a surviving spouse, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for filing a formal accounting or exceptions thereto. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved


Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. offers specialized legal assistance to individuals, families and businesses throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Freehold, Colts Neck, Rumson), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County, Somerset County, and Burlington County.

Probate / Estate Practice Specialties: Drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, insolvency petitions, will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, Power of Attorney abuse, ejectment and eviction, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-compelling-production-of-a-will/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: Contesting a Will for Improper Form or Execution

In determining whether grounds exist to challenge the validity of a Last Will and Testament, an analysis must be made as to whether the purported Will was prepared and executed in conformance with the New Jersey Wills Act. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 3B:3-2, a Will must be:

1. In writing;
2. Signed by the testator or in the testator’s name by some other individual in the testator’s conscious presence and at the testator’s direction; and
3. Signed by at least two individuals, each of whom signed within a reasonable time after each witnessed either the signing of the Will or the testator’s acknowledgment of that signature or acknowledgment of the Will.

In the alternative, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 3B:3-2(b) and N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3, a noncompliant document may suffice if the signature and material portions of the document are in the testator’s handwriting or if the proponent of the document can establish that the decedent intended the document to constitute his or her Will. However, as stated in In the Matter of Will of Ranney, 124 N.J. 1 (1991), the execution of a Last Will and Testament remains a “solemn event,” and a careful practitioner must observe the formalities surrounding the execution of Wills.

In Ranney, the New Jersey Supreme Court highlighted the significance of the statutory formalities for the preparation and execution of Wills and commented that:

The primary purpose of those formalities is to ensure that the document reflects the uncoerced intent of the testator. Requirements that the will be in writing and signed by the testator also serve an evidentiary function by providing courts with reliable evidence of the terms of the will and of the testamentary intent. Additionally, attestation requirements prevent fraud and undue influence. Further, the formalities perform a “channeling function” by requiring a certain degree of uniformity in the organization, language, and content of wills. Finally, the ceremony serves as a ritual that impresses the testator with the seriousness of the occasion.

Although the doctrine of substantial compliance may permit a defect in formality to be cured in certain instances, failure to carefully comply with the statutory requirements for execution of a Will may result in a Will contest or challenge.

Because estate litigation and Will contests require specialized knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, the elective share of a surviving spouse, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for filing a formal accounting or exceptions thereto. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved


Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. offers specialized legal assistance to individuals, families and businesses throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Freehold, Colts Neck, Rumson), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County, Somerset County, and Burlington County.

Probate / Estate Practice Specialties: Drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, insolvency petitions, will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, Power of Attorney abuse, ejectment and eviction, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: Lack of Capacity as Grounds for Will Contest

The validity of a purported Last Will and Testament may be challenged for many reasons, including that the testator or testatrix lacked the mental capacity to make the Will. Generally, for purposes of a Will contest, the contestant has the burden of proving that the testator or testatrix did not have the requisite mental capacity at the time the Will was executed.

Pursuant to the New Jersey Probate Code (N.J.S.A. 3B:3-1), any person over the age of eighteen (18) years old, who is of sound mind, may make a Will. Generally, a testator or testatrix has the necessary capacity to make a Will if he or she:

1. understands the general nature of the business in which he or she is engaged and the particular distribution he or she is effecting;
2. recollects the property of which he or she means to dispose and the persons who naturally are the objects of his or her bounty; and
3. comprehends the interrelation of these facts.

As can be imagined, the analysis is very fact-sensitive, and will ordinarily require expert testimony. As indicated above, only a minimal degree of capacity is necessary to make a Will. Furthermore, a very low degree of intelligence suffices for testamentary capacity – pursuant to New Jersey case law, even if the testator or testatrix is childish, “feebleminded,” a “drunkard,” an addict, suffering from memory lapses, or even classified as insane, he or she may still have the necessary capacity to make a Will.

Although the validity of a Will may be challenged for a certain period of time after it has been admitted to probate (generally, four months), a properly filed caveat may prevent the executor or executrix from receiving letters testamentary. Depending on the circumstances of each particular case, it may be advantageous to prevent the probate of a doubtful Will by filing a caveat, rather than seeking to challenge the probate judgment after the Will has been admitted.

Because estate litigation and Will contests require specialized knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, caveats, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, the elective share of a surviving spouse, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for filing a formal accounting or exceptions thereto. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved


Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. offers specialized legal assistance to individuals, families and businesses throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Freehold, Colts Neck, Rumson), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County, Somerset County, and Burlington County.

Probate / Estate Practice Specialties: Drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, insolvency petitions, will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, Power of Attorney abuse, ejectment and eviction, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-lack-of-capacity-as-grounds-for-will-contest/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/practice-areas/estate-administration-and-litigation/

New Jersey Estate Litigation: Old Bridge Funeral Home v. Pruckowski, et al., and the Importance of Naming a Funeral Agent in Your Will

By: Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq.

 

Estate litigation includes, among numerous other potential claims, claims related to funeral arrangements, burial, and disinterment. Most disputes in this regard must be resolved by determining the authorized person to make such decisions. In a recent unpublished decision of the Appellate Division, Old Bridge Funeral Home, LLC v. Pruckowski, et al., the importance of designating a funeral agent in the Last Will and Testament was discussed. The relevant facts of the case were as follows:

• The decedent executed a Last Will and Testament directing the executor to pay her “just debts and funeral expenses.”
• The three children of the decedent were intentionally omitted from the Will.
• Despite funeral arrangements having been made by the executor at a funeral home in Union, the decedent’s children wanted a funeral closer to Old Bridge, where the decedent’s family and friends lived.
• The decedent’s son “booked” the funeral with Old Bridge Funeral Home for $30,789.00, and executed a “Payment Policy.”
• The children executed a contract/promissory note to guarantee payment.
• The funeral home filed suit for breach of contract when payment was not made, naming the children, the executor, and the estate as defendants.

The Appellate Division interpreted, and highlighted the significance of, N.J.S.A. 45:27-22(a) in reaching its decision. Pursuant to the statute, a testator/testatrix may appoint a person in his or her Will to control his or her funeral and disposition of human remains. It is not necessary that the appointed funeral representative be the executor/executrix of the Will, and the designated representative may act prior to the Will being admitted to probate. In the event that the decedent fails to make such a designation, or in the event that he or she died intestate (without a Will), the right to control the funeral and disposition, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, is set forth by statute in the following priority:

1. Surviving spouse (unless an active restraining order exists or an intentional killing of the decedent by the surviving spouse has occurred);
2. Majority of surviving adult children;
3. Surviving parent(s);
4. Majority of siblings;
5. Other next of kin according to degree of consanguinity; and
6. If no known relative, any representative providing written authorization.

As the decedent in Old Bridge Funeral Home, LLC v. Pruckowski, et al. did not designate a funeral agent in her Will, the statutory hierarchy applied – “as the surviving adult children of the decedent, the children had a higher priority right to control the funeral than [] the Executor.” Furthermore, the Court reasoned that “nothing in the statute [provides] that the statutory hierarchy shall be modified based on whether the children inherit under the Will.” The Court noted that it is the obligation of an executor to settle and distribute the estate in accordance with the Will and, therefore, to pay funeral expenses; however, the Court was clear that, when a third person makes funeral arrangements for a decedent at the expense of the estate, the expenses incurred must be reasonable. Ultimately, the Appellate Division remanded the matter to the trial court for the sole issue of determining what funeral expenses were reasonable, taking into account any applicable credit for the estate’s settlement with the funeral home.

Because estate and trust administration and litigation requires specialized knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you are either a fiduciary or beneficiary of an estate or trust. Specifically, you may wish to contact an attorney if you have questions regarding burial or disinterment of a loved one, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for filing a formal accounting or exceptions thereto. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved


Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. offers specialized legal assistance to individuals, families and businesses throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Freehold), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County, Somerset County, and Burlington County. If you have any questions or concerns regarding estate planning, estate administration, or estate litigation, contact the experienced estate attorneys at Timothy J. Little, P.C.

Estate Practice Specialties: Drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, insolvency petitions, will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, Power of Attorney abuse, ejectment and eviction, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-estate-litigation-old-bridge-funeral-home-v-pruckowski-et-al-and-the-importance-of-naming-a-funeral-agent-in-your-will/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/practice-areas/estate-administration-and-litigation/

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: Undue Influence as Grounds for Will Contest

By: Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq.

 

The validity of a purported Last Will and Testament may be challenged for many reasons including undue influence. Undue influence is defined as mental, moral, or physical exertion resulting in the destruction of the free agency of the testator. Despite the popular misconception, undue influence may be accomplished by either violent or peaceful means, including truthful statements or moral or psychological pressure on the testator.

Generally, the caveator or contestant of a Last Will and Testament has the burden of proving that a testator has been subjected to undue influence; however, a presumption of undue influence is raised where (1) there exists a confidential relationship between the testator and the person alleged to have exerted undue influence; and (2) suspicious circumstances exist as to the Will. Pursuant to New Jersey case law, if the Will benefits one who stood in a confidential relationship to the testator and if there are additional ‘suspicious’ circumstances, the burden shifts to the proponent of the Will to prove that the Will is valid. As explained in the landmark Haynes case,

The burden of proving undue influence lies upon the contestant unless the Will benefits one who stood in a confidential relationship to the testatrix and there are additional circumstances of a suspicious character present which require explanation. In such a case the law raises a presumption of undue influence and the burden of proof is shifted to the proponent.

(See the 1981 New Jersey Supreme Court decision of Haynes v. First Nat’l State Bank)

A confidential relationship may include guardian, power of attorney, partner, business agent, business associate, legal counsel, medical adviser, physician, nurse, and spiritual advisor. In regards to family relationships, a confidential relationship may be found where trust and confidence exist. In regards to “suspicious circumstances,” the suspicious circumstances need be no more than slight. As set forth in New Jersey case law,

Circumstances suggestive of inequality, unfairness, imposition, or overreaching give rise to a presumption of undue influence, and there is cast upon the proponent the burden of coming forward with evidence in quality and force sufficient to dispel the presumption…[i]n a confidential relation slight circumstances may shift the burden.

(See the 1956 New Jersey Supreme Court decision of Blake’s Will)

The following are some examples from New Jersey case law as to circumstances or actions of the influencing party deemed “suspicious”:

• Where the Will provides for an unnatural disposition;
• Initiation of the preparation of the Will;
• Attending to the execution of the Will or selection of the drafting attorney or witnesses;
• Where someone in a position of trust drafts the Will or causes it to be drafted;
• Attempts to procure inter vivos gifts from the testator;
• Where attempts are made to isolate or exclude the testator;
• Efforts to conceal the Will or the fact that it has been drafted;
• Taking possession of the Will;
• Lying or spreading false stories about the natural beneficiaries;
• Embittering the testator or creating fear, paranoia, or prejudices; or
• Where the testator is mentally weak.

Because estate litigation and Will contests require specialized knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, the elective share of a surviving spouse, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for filing a formal accounting or exceptions thereto. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved


Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. offers specialized legal assistance to individuals, families and businesses throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Colts Neck, Rumson, Freehold), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County, Somerset County, and Burlington County.

Probate / Estate Practice Specialties: Drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, insolvency petitions, will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, Power of Attorney abuse, ejectment and eviction, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-undue-influence-as-grounds-for-will-contest/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/practice-areas/estate-administration-and-litigation/