Probate Arbitration Issue Requires Legislative Attention
The recent Chancery Division decision in 'Matter of Estate of Hekemian' raises an issue of first impression in New Jersey that calls for the intervention of the Legislature.
February 18, 2022 at 12:02 PM
2 minute read
Alternative Dispute ResolutionThe recent Chancery Division decision in Matter of Estate of Hekemian raises an issue of first impression in New Jersey that calls for the intervention of the Legislature. The case involves a dispute under a will that set up a number of testamentary trusts. After the will was probated, one of the beneficiaries requested an early distribution or loan from the trusts. When the trustees refused, he sued for an accounting. Defendants responded by moving to compel arbitration under the arbitration clause of the will, which provided that "any dispute regarding the interpretation of this Will or the trusts provided herein, or arising out of the action of the executors and/or others acting hereunder in a fiduciary capacity" was subject to arbitration under the procedure provided in the clause, and that "arbitration shall be the sole remedy" for such disputes.
In a careful and well-reasoned opinion, the chancery court denied arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause was unenforceable on two grounds. First, the court analogized it to an in terrorem clause, which is unenforceable when the objector has probable cause. Second, the court reasoned that arbitration is a matter of contract and that the relation of testator and beneficiary is not contractual. In reaching that result it discussed at length and rejected a Texas Supreme Court decision that had upheld a similar arbitration provision on the grounds that arbitration is favored as a matter of public policy, that the testator's intent should be enforced and that the beneficiary implicitly agreed to arbitration by claiming benefits under the instrument.
Whether a testator can compel disputes about the interpretation and execution of his will to be subject to arbitration is an issue of great consequence for the transmission of property at death. As the trial court opinion illustrates, there are substantial arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. While the decision denying arbitration is appealable as of right under R. 2:2-3(a), we do not know whether the plaintiff intends to appeal. If he does, we hope to see the policy issues thoroughly illuminated by amici curiae. In any event, we believe that the issue is one that can best be explored by legislative hearings and eventual legislation.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'That's Insane': Lawyers Weigh In on Fallout From Uber's User Agreement
7 minute readAppellate Division Rulings Remind Us That, Despite Arbitration's Informal Nature, There Are Rules
7 minute readAppellate Division Ruling on Uber Eats Contract Highlights Evolution of 'Holding the Pen' Concepts
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250