IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FELIX BRAUNIN THE MATTER OF THE PROBATE OF THE LOST WILL OF SYLVIA BRAUN(O-9701 AND P-3275, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-3816-14T2/A-2861-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 2, 2017Background
- Felix Braun died in 2008; his will vested most assets in a trust for daughter Courtney and then granddaughter Molly; Sylvia (wife) filed for an elective share and later litigation ensued among family members.
- In 2010 Sylvia executed a will disinheriting Courtney and placing her estate in trusts to benefit sister Norma and niece Tamara, with remainders to charities; Sylvia remained concerned about providing for them.
- A 2011 mediated settlement draft (signed by attorneys) was not enforced because Courtney refused to sign; schedules allocating personal property were unfinished.
- In early 2014, a document purportedly settling disputes between Sylvia and Courtney was presented; it contained multiple handwritten modifications, ambiguous language ("and/or"; "to be drafted by Attorneys"), and unresolved material terms; Sylvia’s signature lacked a notary line and was undated.
- After Sylvia’s death in March 2014, a copy (but not the original) of the April 27, 2010 will was found in a plastic bag at her home; evidence showed Courtney had access to the house and searched for the will prior to appointment of a neutral administrator.
- Lower court (Judge Camille M. Kenny) denied enforcement of the 2014 settlement as facially unfinished and admitted the copy of the 2010 will to probate after finding by clear and convincing evidence that Sylvia did not revoke or destroy the original will.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of the 2014 settlement document | Belott argued the document was a binding settlement (and alternatively a will or contract to make a will) | Respondents argued the document was fatally ambiguous, left material terms unresolved, and thus unenforceable | Court: Document was facially deficient; parties failed to agree on multiple material terms; settlement unenforceable |
| Need for plenary hearing before denying enforcement | Belott argued factual disputes (e.g., authenticity/meeting of minds) required plenary hearing | Respondents argued facial insufficiency justified summary refusal to enforce | Court: No plenary hearing required where document is facially unenforceable and record one-sided |
| Admissibility of a copy of Sylvia’s 2010 will (presumption of revocation) | Proponents argued Sylvia did not intend to revoke/destroy the original; copy should be probated | Opponents (executor/appellants) argued evidence suggested destruction or revocation and raised alternative standards of proof | Court: Proponents met clear and convincing standard; credible evidence Sylvia did not revoke/destroy original; copy admitted |
| Appropriate proof standard to rebut presumption of revocation | Appellant urged an older standard requiring exclusion of every possibility that testator destroyed will | Proponents relied on modern clear-and-convincing proof of testamentary intent and lack of revocation | Court: Applied clear-and-convincing standard (consistent with recent caselaw/statute) and found it satisfied; even under older standard record excluded the possibility in context |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaur v. Assured Lending Corp., 405 N.J. Super. 468 (App. Div. 2009) (standard for de novo review of legal issues)
- Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427 (1992) (agreements unenforceable where essential terms are unresolved)
- Morton v. 4 Orchard Land Trust, 180 N.J. 118 (2004) (contract interpretation principles)
- Amatuzzo v. Kozmiuk, 305 N.J. Super. 469 (App. Div. 1997) (when no material facts in dispute a plenary hearing may be unnecessary)
- Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, 219 N.J. 395 (2014) (standard for appellate review when trial court decides no plenary hearing required)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (deference to trial judge credibility findings)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate review and deference to factual findings)
- In re Estate of Ehrlich, 427 N.J. Super. 64 (App. Div. 2012) (clear-and-convincing standard in will proof)