In this appeal, a father challenges the validity of his son’s last will and testament (the Will) contending that his son’s Will was the product of undue influence by the decedent’s aunt, who was named as executor and sole beneficiary of the Will. Following a bench trial, the chancery court entered a final judgment in favor of defendant and dismissed plaintiff’s complaints.
Discussion of the Case
Decedent passed away at the age of thirty-two. He had been a talented professional dancer, who toured nationally and internationally with various groups and entertainers. Michael’s mother was not involved in raising him. Instead, Michael grew up in the home of his paternal grandparents. Plaintiff (father) and defendant (aunt) also lived in that home. After Michael was approximately six years old, the father spent numerous years in prison. By the time decedent was nineteen years old he was living on his own in Philadelphia.
The decedent’s aunt testified that she had a close relationship with her nephew and during the last year of his life she would often visit him. She claimed that both of his parents suffered from significant substance abuse problems.
In 2020 the son was taken to the emergency room at St. Michael’s Hospital in Newark and died one week later. The Aunt arranged for Michael’s funeral and memorial services. She also took care of Michael’s debts and obligations, including arranging for the care of his dog.
In July 2020, aunt submitted her nephew’s will to probate. The assets of Michael’s estate were estimated to be worth approximately $130,000.
After hearing testimony from six witnesses, the chancery court found that decedent and his aunt shared an “aunt and nephew relationship…but not a confidential relationship.” The judge made this finding based on the credibility of the witnesses. In particular, the chancery judge relied on the testimony of cousins and the notary, who each witnessed the execution of the Will. Those witnesses all testified that Michael was alert, understood what he was doing, and identified the Will as a document he had prepared.
The chancery judge also found that there was nothing suspicious about the timing or circumstances of Michael’s execution of his Will. The judge noted that Michael was battling cancer and appropriately made estate plans. The judge assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found credible all the witnesses who were present when Michael signed his Will.
After the chancery judge found that there was no evidence that Michael’s Will was the product of undue influence, he correctly rejected plaintiff’s challenge to the Will under the governing law.
My takeaway of the case: This poor young man had a tough childhood and non-existent parents. The parents deserved nothing and got nothing. Justice was served leaving his estate to decedent’s aunt.
To discuss your NJ probate litigation matter, please contact Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq. toll-free at (855) 376-5291 or email him at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com. Please ask us about our video conferencing or telephone consultations if you are unable to come to our office.
By Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq. of Hanlon Niemann & Wright, a Freehold Township, Monmouth County, NJ Probate Litigation Attorney