Surrogate Nora Anderson

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Decedent was survived by daughters, Barbara and Nancy. A 2006 instrument was offered for probate leaving the estate in two equal shares to Barbara outright, and Nancy via a supplemental needs trust. The instrument provided for ways to distribute tangible personal property if the daughters were unable to agree on division. After prolonged disputes, a settlement agreement was signed on appointing an administrator c.t.a., but Barbara repudiated same. Nancy sought to enforce the stipulation. Barbara claimed she was unaware she was agreeing to appointment of her former attorney, Kay’s, appointment as administrator. Yet, the court stated as there were hours of discussion before the stipulation was signed and she actively participated in same, then signed the stipulation, Barbara’s claim she did not understand its effect was “plainly incredible.” As the stipulation was clear and unambiguous, and no extraordinary circumstances existed preventing enforcement, Nancy’s petition to enforce the stipulation was granted as the stipulation was sufficient proof the interested parties designated Kay to serve. Kay was directed to file his cross-petition for probate and appointment as administrator c.t.a. Barbara and Nancy’s cross-petitions seeking appointment as administrator was rendered moot.