In the Matter of Shoshannah Chouake, Deceased
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Contested probate proceeding involving whether a will should be admitted to probate when there are unresolved issues of undue influence by a primary beneficiary who had a potentially confidential relationship with the decedent.
The Surrogate's Court granted summary judgment dismissing the objection based on undue influence and admitted the will to probate.
The Appellate Division reversed the decree insofar as appealed from, denied summary judgment on the undue influence objection, and modified the underlying order accordingly.
The petitioner failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he had a confidential relationship with the decedent and whether the will was procured through undue influence, especially given that he was the decedent's attorney, held her power of attorney, communicated with the draftsperson, and the will was prepared while the decedent was terminally ill.
Background
The petitioner sought probate of the decedent's December 28, 2017 will. He was not related to the decedent, yet he was named executor and a primary beneficiary. The objectant, the decedent's brother, opposed probate, alleging among other things that the will was the product of undue influence. The record showed that the petitioner had previously assisted the decedent in litigation involving her mother's estate, held a power of attorney for her, and communicated with the attorney who drafted the will while the decedent was in the final stages of a terminal illness.
Lower Court Decision
The Surrogate's Court, Queens County, granted the branch of the petitioner's motion for summary judgment dismissing the objection based on undue influence and later entered a decree admitting the will to probate.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that summary judgment should not have been granted. It found that the petitioner's own submissions left unresolved factual questions about the existence of a confidential relationship and the possibility of undue influence. Because those issues should be decided at trial rather than on summary judgment, the court reversed the decree insofar as appealed from and denied that branch of the motion.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that in probate disputes, a movant seeking summary judgment against an undue influence objection must affirmatively show that no triable issue exists. Where the beneficiary had a potentially confidential or controlling relationship with the decedent, especially as attorney-in-fact or legal adviser, and was involved in the will's preparation during the decedent's serious illness, courts are likely to require a factual hearing or trial.
A will proponent who is also a primary beneficiary, attorney, and holder of the decedent's power of attorney may face an inference of undue influence, and summary judgment is improper if the record leaves factual questions about that relationship and the circumstances of the will's execution.