Litigants facing disputes involving the assets of a decedent should carefully consider the forum they choose to initiate an action or proceeding. They should not allow assumptions to dictate their initial decisions in this regard. Common missteps based on faulty assumptions range from believing the Surrogate’s Court is more limited in its subject matter jurisdiction than it is, to believing that the Surrogate’s Court’s jurisdiction is virtually limitless so long as a decedent is somehow involved. Similarly, litigants sometimes make faulty assumptions when deciding to bring an action in federal court versus New York state courts where parties reside in different states. This column is intended to illustrate a few examples of jurisdictional issues that involve disputes over a decedent’s assets or affairs to demonstrate why a choice of forum is not always as obvious or simple as one might assume.

Unlike in many sister states, the Surrogate’s Court in New York is not merely an administrative court whose only function is to probate wills and appoint personal representatives of estates in non-contested matters—far from it. The Surrogate’s Court has broad constitutional authority:

… to exercise full and complete general jurisdiction in law and in equity to administer justice in all matters relating to estates and the affairs of decedents, and upon the return of any process to try and determine all questions, legal or equitable, arising between any or all of the parties to any action or proceeding, or between any party and any other person having any claim or interest therein, over whom jurisdiction has been obtained as to any and all matters necessary to be determined in order to make a full, equitable and complete disposition of the matter by such order or decree as justice requires.