Commissions Disallowed Based on Lack of Trial Court Findings
In re Estate of Yorkowitz, Docket No. A-2835-22 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Sept. 4, 2024)
The decedent died on May 28, 2019. In July 2019, the Middlesex County Surrogate admitted to probate the decedent’s will of August 2018 and issued letters testamentary to plaintiff Billy Perialis. The decedent’s will devised certain real estate to Perialis and named him executor of the estate.
Defendant Jeffrey Suckow was the sole residuary beneficiary under the will.
In September 2019, Perialis filed a verified complaint seeking to admit to probate the decedent’s handwritten codicil, dated February 24, 2019. The codicil provided, among other bequests, that Perialis’s family would receive $500,000 in cash from the estate. Suckow contested the codicil.
Following a three-day trial, the court issued an order voiding the codicil, finding it was the result of undue influence exerted by Perialis. Although the court determined the codicil was authored by the decedent and was written with testamentary intent, it found Perialis failed to meet his burden to overcome the presumption of undue influence.
Suckow subsequently applied to the judge to remove Perialis as executor and direct that Perialis reimburse the estate for commissions, counsel fees, and costs paid on his behalf from the estate. The court denied Suckow’s request to remove Perialis as executor, finding the estate was almost settled, and removing and replacing an executor would create unnecessary expenses for the estate. The court further denied Suckow’s request for Perialis to reimburse the estate for his commission and counsel fees. The court also determined both parties’ counsel fees and litigation costs would be paid by the estate. Later, the court amended the order by adjusting certain dollar amounts.
Suckow moved for reconsideration. The trial judge denied that application. The court also amended the amounts for counsel fees payable to Perialis’s attorneys. The court further ordered the estate to bear the costs related to Perialis’s medical expert and handwriting expert.
The court ordered Perialis to file a formal accounting when the estate was closed.
Perialis then filed a formal accounting action. Suckow filed an answer, exceptions, and a counterclaim.
The trial court entered an order: denying the commission to Perialis and a portion of the counsel fees paid to Perialis’s attorney; denying reimbursement for Perialis’s medical expert; and allowing fees payable to Perialis’s handwriting expert. The court did not provide a statement of reasons for the rulings.
Perialis moved for reconsideration. The court rendered an oral decision that motion.
Both parties appealed.
The Appellate Division indicated that the issues on appeal were confined to the trial court’s allocation of the parties’ counsel fees and expert fees, and the court’s disallowance of commissions. The Appellate Division also explained that such rulings are to be disturbed only on a showing of abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
However, after summarizing the parties’ arguments on appeal, the court observed that R. 1:7-4(a) requires that “[t]he court shall, by an opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its conclusions of law thereon in all actions tried without a jury, on every motion decided by a written order that is appealable as of right . . . .” Without a statement of reasons, an appeals court cannot conduct meaningful review.
The Appellate Division concluded that the trial court did not adequately set forth a basis for its rulings, and the Appellate Division could not reconcile certain of those rulings. Accordingly, the case was remanded for the trial court to provide a proper statement of reasons pursuant to R. 1:7-4 for the various orders which were the subject of the appeal.