Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: ESTATE OF Charles ABRAMS, Deceased. Accounting of Henry J. Goldschmidt, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Charles Abrams, Deceased. In re Application of Charles M. Haar, as successor Trustee of the Trust for the Benefit of Judith D. Abrams under the Last Will and Testament of Charles Abrams, Deceased, for the Judicial Settlement, etc. In re Application of Charles M. Haar, as successor Trustee of the Trust for the benefit of Abby Abrams under the Last Will and Testament of Charles Abrams, Deceased, for the Judicial Settlement, etc. Charles M. Haar, et al., Petitioners-Respondents. Adam Abrams, et al., Objectants-Appellants.
Order, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about September 30, 1996, which, inter alia, dismissed certain objections to a trustee accounting of a residuary trust created under the subject will, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The objectants challenge the funding of their mother's residuary trust on the ground that EPTL 2-1.9 precluded the decedent's widow from sharing in the appreciation of the decedent's estate, and urge that the release their mother executed is not binding upon them because her interests were in conflict with their own. The Surrogate properly rejected both contentions. EPTL 2-1.9 does not prohibit the distribution of the appreciation of a legacy that is not strictly pecuniary in nature, and, in any event, the sort of hybrid marital legacy bestowed herein upon the widow was constructively distributed to her in 1974, when there had been no appreciation in the estate. It was only later, as the real estate market improved, that the appreciation occurred. As the Surrogate ruled, nothing in EPTL 2-1.9 requires that the widow be deprived of this appreciation of her own property merely because she did not immediately withdraw her share of the decedent's estate but instead acceded to the decedent's wishes, as stated in the will, to maintain the family real estate business as a unified whole for as long as practicable. Concerning the release, itself a sufficient basis for rejecting the objections regardless of the effect of EPTL 2-1.9, although the concept of virtual representation “is to be applied with caution” (Matter of Goldstick, 177 A.D.2d 225, 233, 581 N.Y.S.2d 165), releases have long been a preferred method of settling fiduciary accounts, and the objectants, who, as remainderpersons of their mother's trust, shared her interest in achieving its maximum possible funding, have presented no evidence of conflict or other reason justifying its avoidance. We have considered the objectants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 16, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)