Matter of Castaldo v Mondiello, individually and as trustee of the Dorothy Castaldo Irrevocable Trust
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Trusts and Estates — exercise of a limited power of appointment and undue influence challenge
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied Mondiello’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition challenging the limited power of appointment.
The denial of summary judgment; the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the petition.
The trust’s unambiguous terms authorized the decedent to reallocate the remainder via a limited power of appointment without beneficiary consent, so Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) 7-1.9(a) [permits a creator to revoke or amend a trust upon the written consent of all persons beneficially interested] did not apply; petitioner also failed to raise a triable issue of undue influence.
Background
Gary Vincent Castaldo commenced a proceeding under CPLR article 77 [special proceeding for judicial supervision of express trusts] to set aside a limited power of appointment (LPA) executed on April 16, 2019 by his mother, Dorothy Castaldo, reallocating the trust remainder among a specified class of beneficiaries pursuant to Article Six of the trust. He alleged the LPA violated EPTL 7-1.9 and resulted from undue influence by trustee Diana Mondiello. The record showed the decedent was of sound mind, executed the LPA in her attorney’s office without Mondiello present, had become estranged from petitioner in 2018 following his asset inquiries and a guardianship filing, and thereafter consistently expressed a desire to disinherit him.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied Mondiello’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition, allowing the challenges based on EPTL 7-1.9 and undue influence to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed insofar as appealed from. The Appellate Division held that the trust instrument unambiguously authorized the decedent to exercise a limited power of appointment to reallocate the remainder, rendering EPTL 7-1.9(a) inapplicable because no beneficiary consent was required. It further held Mondiello made a prima facie showing negating undue influence, coercion, or duress, and petitioner failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the petition.
Legal Significance
Confirms that where a trust expressly reserves a limited power of appointment to the settlor to reallocate remainder interests among a defined class, the exercise of that power is an amendment authorized by the instrument and does not trigger EPTL 7-1.9(a)’s beneficiary-consent requirement. It also reiterates that undue influence requires proof of moral coercion destroying free agency, and absent such proof, summary judgment is appropriate.
An express limited power of appointment in a trust can be exercised without beneficiary consent under EPTL 7-1.9(a), and conclusory undue influence claims—especially where the settlor acted independently, was of sound mind, and consistently intended the disposition—will not defeat summary judgment.