In the Matter of the Estate of Aurelia Defrank
433 N.J. Super. 258
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Aurelia DeFrank died in 2009; her will (2002) split her estate equally between her two daughters, Lorraine Rubaltelli (plaintiff) and Diane DiDonato (defendant/executor).
- Twelve joint bank accounts titled to Aurelia and Diane held about $259,407 (≈16% of estate). Aurelia deposited all funds, received statements, paid taxes, and could withdraw/change designations.
- Accounts were opened between 1980–2001. After ~2000 Diane increasingly assisted with or handled transactions; Diane was named attorney-in-fact in POAs (1991, 2002) and executor.
- Plaintiff sued after probate seeking an accounting and claiming the joint accounts were probate assets — created for convenience and/or the product of a confidential relationship/undue influence — not survivorship transfers under the MPDA.
- The motion court granted summary judgment to Diane, finding the MPDA presumption of survivorship applied and no confidential relationship at account creation; the Appellate Division reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rubaltelli) | Defendant's Argument (DiDonato) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint accounts passed by survivorship under the MPDA or belonged to the estate | Accounts were created for convenience; Aurelia intended equal treatment and did not intend survivorship; confidential relationship/undue influence presumed | Joint accounts create a rebuttable presumption of survivorship; evidence shows Aurelia intended survivorship | Reversed trial grant of summary judgment to defendant — genuine factual disputes about intent/confidential relationship preclude summary judgment |
| Whether evidence of post-formation conduct is admissible to show intent | Post-formation actions (gifts, account use, Diane’s management) show Aurelia’s intent was convenience and equal treatment | Intent should be judged at account creation; later conduct not probative | Court allows post-formation evidence of intent; motion judge erred in excluding later conduct from consideration |
| Whether a confidential relationship existed such that undue influence is presumed | Diane’s role (POAs, regular assistance, withdrawals) created a confidential relationship triggering presumption of undue influence | No confidential relationship at the time accounts were created; Diane’s assistance was not coercive | Genuine issue of material fact exists about a confidential relationship; summary judgment was improper |
| Appropriate use of summary judgment when intent/state of mind disputed | Plaintiff: summary judgment inappropriate because intent and credibility are disputed | Defendant: summary judgment appropriate based on statutory presumption and facts | Court: summary judgment improper where intent/confidential-relationship disputes remain; factual issues must go to factfinder |
Key Cases Cited
- Polzo v. County of Essex, 209 N.J. 51 (discusses standard for viewing evidence on summary judgment)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (summary judgment standard and inferences for non-movant)
- Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67 (caution against summary judgment when intent, willfulness, or conscience is at issue)
- Sadofski v. Williams, 60 N.J. 385 (joint accounts used for convenience do not create survivorship rights)
- In re Estate of Penna, 322 N.J. Super. 417 (consider direct and circumstantial evidence, including post-formation conduct, to infer intent)
- Estate of Ostlund v. Ostlund, 391 N.J. Super. 390 (confidential relationship and post-creation evidence considered in survivorship disputes)
- Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20 (definition and scope of confidential relationships)
- Bronson v. Bronson, 218 N.J. Super. 389 (joint accounts as delegation of financial responsibility evincing confidential relationship)