Eviner v. Yoketing Eng, 1:13-cv-06940

Background

Decedent Herbert Eng died in 1993; he owned two real properties and a stock portfolio held in joint tenancy with his daughter Christina, which under New York law passed to Christina at his death.
Christina claims she was unaware of the portfolio and that siblings (Anna, Yoketing) and Yoketing’s wife Trinh concealed and diverted portfolio income (dividends/distributions) from 1993–2012 (approx. $285,000 claimed).
Yoketing and Trinh admit receiving and endorsing checks payable to Herbert and Christina and depositing them into various accounts; they contend a 1993 oral family agreement authorized sharing and management of the portfolio income, with Trinh handling finances.
Trinh kept poor records, commingled funds, ceased paying family property expenses after 2006, and admits spending substantial funds (≈$80,000) from 2006–2012; voicemails from Yoketing/Trinh followed a 2012 demand letter.
Procedurally: case removed/transferred to E.D.N.Y.; multiple summary judgment motions pending (plaintiff v. Yoketing & Trinh; Yoketing & Trinh v. plaintiff and banks; Anna’s motion; banks’ cross-claims). Court denied most summary judgment requests without prejudice, granted dismissal of plaintiff’s RICO claim, and permitted plaintiff to renew claims addressing de facto trust issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yoketing/Trinh converted/diverted Christina’s portfolio income	Christina: no 1993 agreement; defendants forged/endorsed checks and misappropriated income	Yoketing/Trinh: parties agreed in 1993 to share income and authorized Trinh to handle funds	Denied summary judgment for plaintiff — genuine dispute whether a 1993 agreement existed; factual question for jury
Whether a de facto trust (and trustee duties) arose from defendants’ handling of income	Christina: even if an agreement existed, conduct created a trust and Trinh breached fiduciary duties by commingling/spending funds	Defendants: funds were shared household income under an oral family agreement	Court: issue unbriefed by plaintiff but record supports possible de facto trust; plaintiff may renew motion addressing trustee duties; denial without prejudice to renew
Admissibility of post-demand voicemails as admissions	Christina: voicemails are admissions of liability and negate any authorized agreement	Defendants: voicemails were settlement communications protected by FRE 408	Court: most voicemails fall under Rule 408 (settlement communications) except one voicemail where Yoketing appears to accept sole responsibility — that one is admissible
Applicability of New Jersey RICO statute	Christina pleaded NJ RICO	Defendants: RICO inapplicable extraterritorially; conduct occurred in NY	Court: Dismissed RICO claim — NJ RICO not intended to reach enterprise operating wholly outside New Jersey; choice-of-law and territoriality bar application

Key Cases Cited

In re Kane’s Estate, 246 N.Y. 498 (N.Y. 1927) (joint tenancy passes to surviving joint tenant at death)
Brown v. Spohr, 180 N.Y. 201 (N.Y. 1902) (elements for creation of trust in personal property)
In re Doman, 68 A.D.3d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (elements of trust in New York)
Elyachar v. Gerel Corp., 583 F. Supp. 907 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (parol creation of trust; substance over form)
Starr Int’l Co. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., 648 F. Supp. 2d 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (trust may emerge by implication from acts or words)
In re Goldstick, 177 A.D.2d 225 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) (requirement to trace commingled trust funds)
In re HSBA Bank USA, N.A., 98 A.D.3d 300 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (trustee liability for imprudent management; prudent investor rule)
Adam v. Cutner & Rathkopf, 238 A.D.2d 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) (right to accounting arises from fiduciary/confidential relationship)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard — reasonable jury inquiry)
Pierce v. F.R. Tripler & Co., 955 F.2d 820 (2d Cir. 1992) (application of FRE 408 to communications; timing and existence of dispute relevant)
Rule v. Brine, Inc., 85 F.3d 1002 (2d Cir. 1996) (credibility assessments are for the jury, not for summary judgment)