Surrogate John M. Czygier, Jr.

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Respondent moved to dismiss petitioner’s turnover proceeding as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Decedent was survived by two daughters, petitioner Jones and respondent London, the named executrix. The will left decedent’s personal property and residuary estate to the daughters equally. London affirmed decedent died intestate and the only estate asset was a trust account with a $48 value. Jones sought production of the will, then limited letters of administration to commence a discovery and turnover proceeding against London, which were granted. The petition alleged London had decedent’s assets in her possession, including personal property and liquid funds that should have been part of the estate. London denied the allegations, raising a statute of limitations defense arguing Jones’ conversion claim was time-barred as the alleged conversion took place in 2006, but the action was not commenced by Jones until 2015. The court found a conversion did not occur until demand and refusal, even when demand was made after death, and London’s papers did not claim any particular period in which a demand was made, nor did they dispute Jones’ assertion the only demand was service of the order to show cause in Nov. 2015. Dismissal was denied.

Surrogate John M. Czygier, Jr.

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Respondent moved to dismiss petitioner’s turnover proceeding as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Decedent was survived by two daughters, petitioner Jones and respondent London, the named executrix. The will left decedent’s personal property and residuary estate to the daughters equally. London affirmed decedent died intestate and the only estate asset was a trust account with a $48 value. Jones sought production of the will, then limited letters of administration to commence a discovery and turnover proceeding against London, which were granted. The petition alleged London had decedent’s assets in her possession, including personal property and liquid funds that should have been part of the estate. London denied the allegations, raising a statute of limitations defense arguing Jones’ conversion claim was time-barred as the alleged conversion took place in 2006, but the action was not commenced by Jones until 2015. The court found a conversion did not occur until demand and refusal, even when demand was made after death, and London’s papers did not claim any particular period in which a demand was made, nor did they dispute Jones’ assertion the only demand was service of the order to show cause in Nov. 2015. Dismissal was denied.