ESTATE OF MATHIAS GUERRAND, a/k/a MATHIAS GUERRAND-HERMES Deceased. (11-911 C) — In this contested accounting proceeding commenced by the Public Administrator (the “PA”), as administrator of the above-captioned estate, Valesca Guerrand-Hermes (“Valesca” or “movant”), decedent’s ex-wife and an estate creditor, moves for summary judgment on her objection to the PA’s account and also moves for summary dismissal of certain objections to the account filed by other purported creditors. BACKGROUND
Decedent died intestate on April 21, 2010, survived by four minor children. The estate, valued at approximately $4,000,000, is subject to multiple claims, three of which are the subject of the instant motion. First, movant, who is the mother of decedent’s two marital children, has asserted a claim for $2,000,000 based on decedent’s failure to maintain a life insurance policy as required under their settlement agreement and judgment of divorce. Second, Vladlena Belolipskaia Guerrand-Hermes (“Vladlena”), the mother of one of decedent’s nonmarital children (“Vladi”), alleges that she is entitled to $2,101,980 in unpaid child support. Finally, decedent’s father, Patrick Guerrand-Hermes (“Patrick”) and decedent’s uncle, Xavier Guerrand-Hermes (“Xavier”) have together asserted a claim for $750,000 for a loan they purportedly made to decedent. The PA allowed movant’s claim for $2,000,000 and allowed Patrick’s and Xavier’s claim for $750,000, but she rejected Vladlena’s claim for $2,101,980. Guardians ad litem were appointed for each of the children, and various objections to the PA’s account were filed by movant, by Vladlena, and by the guardians ad litem for decedent’s two nonmarital children. Patrick and Xavier have not appeared in this proceeding. VALESCA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In the instant motion, movant seeks summary judgment on her objection to the PA’s allowance of Patrick’s and Xavier’s $750,000 claim, asserting that Patrick and Xavier had assigned this claim to her. Movant also seeks summary dismissal of: (1) Vladlena’s objection to the PA’s allowance of movant’s claim for $2,000,000; (2) Vladlena’s objection to the PA’s rejection of her own claim for $2,101,980 for child support (movant further requests that Vladlena be precluded from submitting any child support claim in excess of $28,109.73); and (3) objections filed by Vladlena and by the guardians ad litem for decedent’s two nonmarital children to the PA’s allowance of Patrick’s and Xavier’s $750,000 claim. The PA submitted an affidavit in partial support of the instant motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of the above-described objections to her account. The PA opposes the instant motion to the extent it seeks summary judgment on movant’s own objection to the PA’s account. Vladlena and the guardians ad litem for the two nonmarital children oppose the motion in its entirety. To the extent that movant seeks to dismiss objections to the PA’s account filed by other parties, the motion is denied because movant is not the proper party to seek such relief. In an accounting proceeding, the fiduciary is in the best position to defend her account against objections thereto, including the decision as to whether to move for summary dismissal of a particular objection. By making her own motion for summary dismissal of certain objections, Valesca effectively usurped the role of the PA in deciding how to best defend the account. The fact that the PA filed an affidavit in support of those prongs of Valesca’s motion does not cure Valesca’s lack of standing to make it; only the PA can move for summary dismissal of an objection to her account. For that reason, the three prongs of the motion which seek summary dismissal of objections filed by Vladlena and the guardians ad litem are denied. If, in light of this decision, the PA decides to move for summary dismissal of any of the above-described objections, the court directs the parties to limit their responsive papers to a simple statement either referring and reiterating their prior submissions to the instant motion, or withdrawing such prior submissions. VALESCA’S OBJECTION TO THE ACCOUNT
