Fiedler's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 08 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. A--566,A--566 |
| Citation | 55 N.J.Super. 500,151 A.2d 201 |
| Parties | In the Matter of ESTATE OF William C. FIEDLER, Deceased. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
William Rowe, Newark, argued the cause for appellant (Steelman, Lafferty & Rowe, Newark, attorneys).
Justin W. Seymour, Orange, argued the cause for respondents (Seymour & Seymour, Orange, attorneys).
Before Judges GOLDMANN, CONFORD and HANEMAN.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HANEMAN, J.A.D.
L. Theodore Fiedler (hereinafter plaintiff), executor of the estate of William C. Fiedler, deceased, appeals from a judgment of the Essex County Court, Probate Division, dismissing his complaint for judicial approval of a plan of distribution of the assets of said estate.
William C. Fiedler died testate on August 29, 1950. On September 12, 1950 letters testamentary were granted to plaintiff by the Essex County Surrogate's Court. Various contingencies, provided for in decedent's will, have occurred, and the residuary estate, both real and personal, is now vested; one-half in L. Theodore Fiedler, and one-half equally in testator's grandchildren (hereinafter defendants). Defendants are identified as follows: Helen B. D. Dakis, John M. Fiedler and William C. Fiedler, II, who are the children of testator's son, William L. J. Fiedler (William predeceased his father), and Martha F. Morris and Janet F. Lorenzen, who are the children of testator's son, L. Theodore Fiedler, the plaintiff here.
The provision of decedent's will here pertinent is article Fifth, which provides:
'I authorize my Executors and Trustees in their discretion: * * *
'(j) To divide or make distribution of all or any part of my estate in kind and without converting the same into cash, and for such purpose to value and appraise any and all properties, securities and investments as of the time of any such division or distribution, which valuation, made in good faith, shall be binding upon all parties interested.
'(1) Generally, to do all acts, take all proceedings and exercise all rights, privileges and discretions although not specifically mentioned in this will, as if they were the absolute owners of my estate.'
The assets presently remaining in the estate are these:
1. 11 shares of stock of Fiedler-Hollister Corp., an insurance agency. The balance of the outstanding stock (11 shares) is owned by Robinson G. Hollister, the operating manager, or by members of Hollister's family.
2. 50 shares of stock of Forty-one Central Ave. Corp., owner of a two-store office building at the title address and of a small unimproved parcel of land at 48 East Park Street, Newark. The balance of the outstanding stock (50 shares) is owned as follows: 40 shares by Helen D. Bahrenburg (widow of William L. J. Fiedler) and one share by her present husband, Edward H. Bahrenburg.
3. 92 shares of stock (the entire stock issued and outstanding) of Littleton Farms, Inc., owner of a tract of approximately 33 acres of undeveloped land in Parsippany-Troy Hills Township.
4. 74 shares of stock of Fiedler Corporation, owner of a three-story office building at 14 Park Place, Newark. The balance of the outstanding stock (10 shares) is owned as follows: 5 shares by plaintiff and 5 shares by the representatives of William J. L. Fiedler, deceased.
5. Three and one-third shares of stock of Fiedler, Inc., a real estate brokerage firm. The balance of the outstanding stock is owned as follows: three and one-third shares by L. Theodore Fiedler and three and one-third shares by the representatives of William L. J. Fiedler, deceased.
6. Two adjacent unimproved building lots in Glen Ridge.
7. One 1946 Chrysler sedan, inventoried at $800.
8. Household furniture, personal effects, cash and securities valued in the inventory at $31,702.74.
Two liabilities remain against the estate. The first is ascertainable--an indebtedness of decedent to Fiedler Corporation, now in the sum of.$23,075; the second, the amount to be charged against the estate in connection with the present and any further proceedings.
On December 10, 1956 plaintiff filed a complaint seeking approval of a plan of distribution for the remaining assets of decedent's estate. The plan of distribution, as set forth in the complaint, is as follows:
L. Theodore Fiedler-(1/2 - residuary
estate)
74 sh. Fiedler Corp. $89,499.30
17 sh. Littleton Farms, Inc. 15,419.51
11 sh. Fiedler-Hollister, Inc. 2,200.00
Chrysler '48 Windsor sedan 800.00 $107,918.81
----------
Janet Fiedler (1/10 - residuary estate)
15 sh. Littleton Farms, Inc. 13,605.45
10 sh. Forty-one Central Ave. Corp. 8,085.80 $21,691.25
----------
Martha Fiedler Morris (1/10 - residuary
estate)
15 sh. Littleton Farms, Inc. 13,605.45
10 sh. Forty-one Central Ave. Corp. 8,085.80 21,691.25
----------
John M. Fiedler (1/10 - residuary estate)
15 sh. Littleton Farms, Inc. 13,605.45
10 sh. Forty-one Central Ave. Corp. 8,085.80 21,691.25
----------
Helen B. D. Dakis (1/10 - residuary
estate)
15 sh. Littleton Farms, Inc. 13,605.45
10 sh. Forty-one Central Ave. Corp. 8,085.80 21,691.25
----------
William C. Fiedler, II (1/10 - residuary
estate)
15 sh. Littleton Farms, Inc. 13,605.45
10 sh. Forty-one Central Ave. Corp. 8,085.80 21,691.25 108,456.25
---------- ----------
Reserve (consisting of cash, $15,000 U. S. Savings Bonds
jewelry, $1,000 6% first mortgage Chamber of Commerce
Newark and household furniture, furnishings and silverware)
for payment of expenses of these proceedings and
other expenses to complete administration of estate and
to pay balance of indebtedness due from estate to Fiedler
Corp............................................................. 31,702.74
-----------
$248,077.80
Defendants object to the proposed distribution upon these grounds:
1. The proposed distribution is not in accord with the provision of the will.
2. The proposed distribution is not made by plaintiff in good faith and is not in accord with the intent of the will.
3. The valuations of the assets by plaintiff are not true and fair values as of the time of distribution and such valuations are not binding on them.
4. Because of the fiduciary relationship which exists between plaintiff and defendants, plaintiff is prohibited from exercising any discretion in connection with the distribution and division of the assets.
5. The distribution proposed is illegal, unfair, inequitable and disproportionate, and gives plaintiff as unwarranted benefit and advantage.
By way of counterclaim defendants seek a distribution of the estate in such manner that each of the remaining assets would be divided and distributed as follows: 50% Of each item to plaintiff individually and 10% Of each item to each of the defendants. Defendants ground their demand on the theory that such was the type of distribution and division especially contemplated and directed by the will. They demand, alternatively, that all remaining assets be liquidated and a distribution be made in cash.
On May 22, 1958 the trial court, by order, dismissed the complaint and counterclaim with prejudice. The trial judge found that: plaintiff was motivated by a selfish interest in allocating various assets to himself; such an allocation was probably detrimental to defendants; the plan of distribution of the assets in the proposed manner was unfair and inequitable to defendants; plaintiff has not exercised the utmost good faith; future possible capital gains taxes upon the various assets favored plaintiff; the assets bearing testator's name have a certain, though indefinite, pecuniary value; the terms of the will, however, did not require distribution in the form urged by defendants.
Initially it should be noted that defendants do not dispute the right of plaintiff to distribute the residuum in kind under the express provisions of the will, nor do we see how defendants could have successfully argued otherwise. 7 New Jersey Practice (Clapp, Wills and Administration) 366 (1950); cf. In re Bush's Will, 2 A.D.2d 526 156 N.Y.S.2d 897 (1956), affirmed 3 N.Y.2d 908, 167 N.Y.S.2d 927, 145 N.E.2d 872 (Ct.App.1957).
Under the express terms of the will plaintiff is given absolute discretion to distribute the remaining assets of the estate in kind. The sole restriction imposed is that the valuations of the assets shall be made in 'good faith.' Therefore, the court may not interfere with the manner and mode of distribution unless the executor has been guilty of bad faith in evaluating the asserts. 6 New Jersey Practice (Clapp, Wills and Administration) 584, § 575 (1950); Noble v. Union Township, 140 N.J.Eq. 513, 55 A.2d 222 (Ch.1947); Latorraca v. Latorraca, 132 N.J.Eq. 40, 26 A.2d 522 (Ch.1942), affirmed 133 N.J.Eq. 298 31 A.2d 819 (E. & A. 1943); O'Gorman v. Crowly, 80 N.J.Eq. 101, 83 A. 379 (Ch.1912), affirmed 81 N.J.Eq. 520, 86 A. 442 (E. & A. 1913); Read v. Patterson, 44 N.J.Eq. 211, 14 A. 490 (E. & A. 1888). The language of the will, insofar as it requires a good faith valuation of the assets by the executor, merely expresses the rule to which the court would hold the executor accountable, absent any contrary direction in the will. Cf. Day v. Grossman, 44 N.J.Super. 28, 129 A.2d 577 (App.Div.1957). Accordingly, if the appraisals of decedent's property were made in good faith by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bullard v. Curry-Cloonan
...their respective rights as legatees. McGee v. Marbury, D.C.Mun.App., 83 A.2d 157, 158 (1951); see In re Fiedler's Estate, 55 N.J. Super. 500, 511, 151 A.2d 201, 207 (1959). Our question, then, becomes whether the settlement agreement in the instant case was entered into by appellee in derel......
-
Thompson's Estate, In re
...as is contemplated for judicial rectification. 6 N.J. Practice (Clapp, Wills and Administration), § 1069; In re Fiedler, 55 N.J. Super. 500, 151 A.2d 201 (App.Div.1959). Testator apparently intended that plaintiff would look after her mother as testator had done during his life and, in the ......