IN THE MATTER OF THE TRUST OF DR. MERRITT EVAN LONDON (P-283-13, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-4693-14T4/A-4746-14T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- Dr. Merritt E. London, wealthy ophthalmologist, executed multiple wills/trusts (2010–Oct 2012) leaving substantial portions of his residuary estate to charities and trusts for his niece and nephew (Patti and Mark).
- In May 2013 attorney Oppenheim prepared a revised trust (May 2013 Trust) that eliminated charities and left the residuary outright to Patti and Mark; Oppenheim hand-delivered an unsigned copy to Brandywine on May 22, 2013.
- Dr. London died May 24, 2013 without signing the May 2013 Trust; testimony shows he discussed the draft with his financial advisor Frigoletto and asked to review it in person but never gave final assent.
- Plaintiffs (Patti and Mark) sought (Count I) admission of the unsigned May 2013 Trust under N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3; separately (Count II) plaintiffs and Thomas (a longtime friend) disputed ownership/beneficiaries of several bank/IRA accounts after Wells Fargo/WFA interpleaded the IRA funds.
- The Probate Part granted summary judgment for respondents: (1) refused to admit the unsigned May 2013 Trust under the two‑prong Macool test (must show decedent reviewed and finally assented by clear and convincing evidence); and (2) held Oct. 4, 2012 beneficiary designation governed the IRA accounts and the POD/TOD labeling on PMA statements did not change IRA beneficiaries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unsigned May 2013 Trust may be admitted under N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3 (testamentary intent) | The May 2013 Trust reflects Dr. London’s final testamentary intent; circumstantial evidence (discussions with counsel and advisor, delivery of draft, statements by Dr. London) show he reviewed and assented | The draft was unsigned and there is no clear-and-convincing proof Dr. London actually reviewed the final draft and gave final assent; Macool requires both prongs | Affirmed: not admitted. Proponents failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that decedent reviewed the draft and gave final assent (Macool two‑prong test unmet) |
| Whether POD/TOD designations on Wells Fargo PMA statements or other account paperwork changed IRA beneficiaries (including to Thomas) | Thomas and plaintiffs contend the PMA statements and account linkages show intent to make Thomas beneficiary of certain accounts outside the estate | Respondents: PMA linking was administrative/for statements only; Oct. 4, 2012 beneficiary designation (signed, witnessed) governs IRAs; no execution of change to name Thomas as IRA beneficiary | Affirmed: Oct. 4, 2012 beneficiary form controls; no admissible evidence that Dr. London effected a valid change making Thomas beneficiary of the IRA accounts |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Probate of Will & Codicil of Macool, 416 N.J. Super. 298 (App. Div. 2010) (establishes two‑prong test under N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3: decedent must have reviewed the writing and given final assent by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Estate of Ehrlich, 427 N.J. Super. 64 (App. Div. 2012) (applies Macool principles; admits unsigned instrument where testator prepared/reviewed instrument and repeatedly confirmed its terms)
- In re Catanio, 306 N.J. Super. 439 (App. Div. 1997) (documents labeled as trusts may be treated as testamentary instruments when they function as wills)
- Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 224 N.J. 189 (2016) (summary judgment standard reiterated: no special deference to trial court legal determinations)