IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SELMA H. LEDERER(P-048-07 AND P-020-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED), A-0175-14T1/A-1042-14T1

Background

Selma H. Lederer's estate spawned protracted litigation among family members over multiple inter vivos transfers and several wills (including documents dated March 21, 1997; August 26, 2000; and September 11, 2000).
Adult parties entered a broad binding-arbitration agreement to resolve “all matters subject to this action”; the arbitrator could issue awards with or without reasons and no verbatim record was made.
The arbitrator issued awards finding James exercised undue influence in preparing certain wills and in making transfers; plaintiffs moved to confirm those awards in court.
A copy of an August 26, 2000 handwritten document surfaced, purportedly naming minor J.L. as a beneficiary; J.L. was not a party to the adults’ arbitration and did not participate in it.
The trial court (Judge Contillo) confirmed the arbitrator’s awards as to the adult parties and gave J.L. the choice either to reopen arbitration on the August 26 document or to seek probate in court; J.L. chose probate and the court dismissed his complaint after a bench trial for failure to prove the document was a valid will by clear and convincing evidence.
Defendants (James, Jessica, Jeremy) appealed confirmation of the arbitration award; J.L. (through guardian ad litem) appealed the probate dismissal and related orders; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the August 26, 2000 document is a valid will (probate)	J.L.: the copy is Selma’s will naming J.L.; court should probate it	Plaintiffs (other heirs): document is not a valid will; appears to be handwritten instructions; undue influence tainted relevant wills	Court: dismissed J.L.’s complaint — insufficient prima facie evidence and not proved by clear and convincing evidence
Whether arbitration award should be vacated for exceeding authority by addressing the August 26 document	Plaintiffs: arbitrator’s awards should be confirmed as within scope	Defendants: arbitrator lacked authority to decide the August 26 document and committed other procedural errors	Court: arbitrator acted within the parties’ broad submission (“all matters subject to this action”); award affirmed under highly deferential review
Whether legal or factual errors in the arbitrator’s rulings warrant vacatur	Plaintiffs: finality of arbitration; errors do not justify vacatur	Defendants: alleged factual/legal errors, refusal to consider evidence, improper sanctions, and other procedural defects justify vacatur	Court: errors of fact or law are not grounds to vacate an arbitration award absent statutory bases (e.g., fraud, evident partiality, exceeding powers); defendants’ claims insufficient
Whether arbitration procedure deprived minor’s interests and/or due process	J.L.: arbitration was unfair; he was not a participant and his interests were affected	Plaintiffs/Trial court: J.L. was offered remedies (reopen arbitration or litigate probate) and chose probate; he had a full trial	Court: J.L. declined reopening arbitration and received full, fair opportunity in court; procedural objections rejected

Key Cases Cited

Tretina Printing, Inc. v. Fitzpatrick & Assocs., 135 N.J. 349 (arbitral/legal errors are generally not grounds to vacate an award)
Minkowitz v. Israeli, 433 N.J. Super. 111 (App. Div.) (deference to arbitrator; limited grounds for vacatur)
Metromedia Energy, Inc. v. Enserch Energy Servs., 409 F.3d 574 (3d Cir.) (arbitrator may determine scope of parties’ submission)
In re Estate of Smalley, 131 N.J. Eq. 175 (Prerog. Ct.) (discussing dependent relative revocation doctrine)