IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PETER J. PISZCZATOSKI (P-000071-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5407-18
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Decedent Peter J. Piszczatoski died in 2018; he had five adult children. Four children (Daniel, Debra, Peter S., and Thomas) sued the fifth, Maureen Lyon, seeking to set aside a deed and to admit a 1968 will; defendant produced 2002 and 2007 wills that largely disinherited the four.
- On the return date the judge denied plaintiffs' emergency relief, dismissed caveats, and admitted the 2007 will to probate. Plaintiffs proceeded to a five-day bench trial asserting undue influence (they voluntarily dismissed their 2007 testamentary-capacity claim at the start of trial).
- Trial testimony included all five siblings, two attorneys, a physician, and a former police chief. The attorney and physician testified decedent was making his own decisions; defendant (a nurse) accompanied decedent to the attorney but waited outside during the meeting.
- The trial judge found decedent strong‑willed and not susceptible to influence, found no confidential relationship or suspicious circumstances sufficient to shift the burden, and concluded plaintiffs failed to prove undue influence; judgment entered for defendant.
- Plaintiffs appealed alleging judicial bias, failure to consider key testimony, and mischaracterization of evidence; the Appellate Division reviewed under the Rova Farms standard and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial bias / judge's conduct | Judge favored Lyon, was inattentive and treated plaintiffs unfairly | Judge was impartial and attentive; record shows no misconduct | Affirmed: record does not support bias; findings entitled to deference |
| Failure to consider / misquote testimony; due process | Judge omitted or misquoted key testimony, skewing proceedings | Judge fully considered the evidence; plaintiffs never moved for mistrial or new trial | Affirmed: transcript shows judge considered testimony; no procedural relief sought below |
| Undue influence / confidential relationship | Lyon exercised undue influence, benefitted as a confidential person, and suspicious facts exist | Decedent was independent, not susceptible; no confidential relationship; attorney/physician saw free decisions | Held for defendant: plaintiffs failed to overcome presumption against undue influence; 2007 will admitted |
| Testamentary capacity (procedural) | (Originally) Decedent lacked capacity in 2007 | Decedent had requisite capacity | Capacity claim was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs at trial; court proceeded only on undue influence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (bench-trial factfinding entitled to appellate deference when supported by substantial credible evidence)
- Gellert v. Livingston, 5 N.J. 65 (1950) (presumption testator is of sound mind; standards for testamentary challenges)
- In re Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275 (2008) (definition of undue influence and framework for proof)
- Haynes v. First Nat'l State Bank, 87 N.J. 163 (1981) (burden-shifting and standards when confidential/professional relationships exist)
- In re Will of Liebl, 260 N.J. Super. 519 (App. Div. 1992) (low degree of mental capacity required to execute a will; presumption of capacity)
- Vezzetti v. Shields, 22 N.J. Super. 397 (App. Div. 1952) (family ties alone do not create a confidential relationship)
- Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199 (2014) (deference to trial judge who heard and observed witnesses)