Surrogate John M. Czygier, Jr.

 

Read Full-Text Decision

After the court issued its Feb. 17, 2017, order, the parties entered into a stipulation on the issue of the referenced trust’s choice of law provision, and governing law regarding issues before the court on the underlying contested trust accounting. Yet, the parties also agreed the issue of whether objectant had standing to file objections in the proceeding was to be resolved before other resolutions as petitioner argued objectant forfeited his share of the trust and triggered the in terrorem clause by unsuccessfully contesting the validity of the amended trust, and seeking damages. Petitioner argued New York law governed the issue of whether objectant triggered the in terrorem clause as petitioner administered the trust from NY since 2005, despite real estate used to fund the trust being in California. The court found the trust’s Section 5c clearly provided for resolution of issues arising regarding construction and administration of the trust referenced the laws of the state in which the trust was then currently being administered. The court ruled the trust was, and had been, administered in NY, and its laws would govern any issue regarding its construction and administration. Hence, it scheduled a hearing on the issue whether objectant had standing to file objections to the accounting.

Surrogate John M. Czygier, Jr.

 

Read Full-Text Decision

After the court issued its Feb. 17, 2017, order, the parties entered into a stipulation on the issue of the referenced trust’s choice of law provision, and governing law regarding issues before the court on the underlying contested trust accounting. Yet, the parties also agreed the issue of whether objectant had standing to file objections in the proceeding was to be resolved before other resolutions as petitioner argued objectant forfeited his share of the trust and triggered the in terrorem clause by unsuccessfully contesting the validity of the amended trust, and seeking damages. Petitioner argued New York law governed the issue of whether objectant triggered the in terrorem clause as petitioner administered the trust from NY since 2005, despite real estate used to fund the trust being in California. The court found the trust’s Section 5c clearly provided for resolution of issues arising regarding construction and administration of the trust referenced the laws of the state in which the trust was then currently being administered. The court ruled the trust was, and had been, administered in NY, and its laws would govern any issue regarding its construction and administration. Hence, it scheduled a hearing on the issue whether objectant had standing to file objections to the accounting.