Hot Trends In Estate Litigation for the Camden County Bar Association

On December 8, 2016, Steve Mignogna, Anthony La Ratta, Donald Craig, and Melissa Osorio Dibble Presented at the 15th Annual Forum: Hot Trends In Estate Litigation for the Camden County Bar Association.

What We’ve Learned So Far Under Uniform Trust Code

On December 13, 2016, Steve Mignogna, Anthony La Ratta, and Melissa Osorio Dibble Presented “What We’ve Learned So Far Under Uniform Trust Code.”

Frozen Embryos File Suit Over Expected Inheritance In Louisiana

Appellate Division Finds 45-Day Limitation To Appeal Not Triggered As Final Accounting And Distribution Remained To Be Submitted

In the Matter of the Estate of Jones, 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2173 (App. Div. Oct. 3, 2016). Defendant Perry Jones, nephew of decedent Hermeles Jones and prior administrator and a beneficiary of decedent's estate, appealed from the order of the probate court that approved the final accounting and distribution of assets submitted by the court-appointed substitute administrator, Loryn Lawson.  Jones and his siblings objected to the final accounting and distribution and refused to execute refunding bonds.  Jones also appealed the order of the probate court that denied Perry’s cross-motion challenging various distributions and reimbursements and claiming breach of fiduciary duty in the administration of the estate.

Executor’s Failure to Repay Note Before Making Distributions Constituted A Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Riedl v. Economaki, 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2169 (App. Div. Sept. 30, 2016). Plaintiff, Christine Riedl, a daughter and executor of the Estate of Christopher C. Economaki, appealed from an order granting summary judgment to decedent’s other daughter, defendant Corinne Economaki.  Decedent died testate and the dispute arose over the payment of estate, inheritance, and gift taxes.  The assets in the estate were worth millions of dollars, including an IRA, annuity, various life insurance policies and death benefits.

Appellate Division Finds Claims Against Estates Under The UFTA Are Cognizable

Rubenstein v. Estate of Rubenstein, 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2119 (App. Div. Sept. 21, 2016). Plaintiffs were the decedent’s former wife and his two children.  They alleged that the decedent intentionally and wrongfully rendered his estate insolvent through inter vivos transfers to the individually named defendants and that those defendants cooperated with his plan. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of the property settlement agreement between the decedent and his former wife that required him to maintain a life insurance policy for her benefit, intentional interference with a contract, and a violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”).