Watson's Estate, In re

Decision Date30 June 1961
Docket NumberNo. A--110,A--110
PartiesIn the Matter of the ESTATE of Belinda WATSON, Deceased. Evelyn A. MACE, next of kin of Belinda Watson, deceased, and William E. Decker, Administrator c.t.a. of the will of Belinda Watson, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Joseph KEANE, General Administrator of the Estate of Belinda Watson, deceased, Defendant-Respondent, and Frank J. Doyle and John Drewen, Co-Administrators, etc., by appointment of Court, Respondents Joseph KEANE, General Administrator of the Estate of Belinda Watson, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank J. DOYLE and John Drewen, Co-Administrators, by appointment of the County Court, Probate Division, et al., Respondents, and William E. Decker, Administrator, etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

James D. Carpenter, Jersey City, for appellants-respondents Evelyn A. Mace and William E. Decker (John D. McMaster, Jersey City, attorney; Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, Jersey City, of counsel; John C. Heavey, Jr., Jersey City, on the brief).

Prospero De Bona, Jersey City, for respondent-appellant Joseph Keane (John B. O'Neill, Jersey City, on the brief).

John Drewen, Jersey City, for respondents Frank J. Doyle and John Drewen.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

JACOBS, J.

The decedent Belinda Watson was a widow who lived for many years in Jersey City and died on July 4, 1960 at the age of 86. For some time before her death she was at a nursing home in Madison and her neighbor Frank J. Doyle handled her affairs such as the receipt and delivery of her mail and the deposit of her dividend checks. When in June 1960 Mrs. Watson told Mr. Doyle that she wanted him and his wife to have her house, he suggested that she retain an attorney and after some discussion she recalled Mr. McMaster, a New Jersey attorney with an office in Jersey City. Mr. McMaster was then in Europe but his office arranged for Mr. William E. Decker to see Mrs. Watson. Mr. Decker, who has been a member of the New Jersey Bar since 1914, saw Mrs. Watson at the nursing home on June 13, 1960. He spent over an hour with her and she told him that she wanted to provide by will for funeral arrangements including the name of the undertaker and wanted to leave her house on Fairmount Avenue, Jersey City, to Mr. and Mrs. Doyle. In response to Mr. Decker's inquiries she stated that she wanted to think further about the disposition of her other property and did not 'want any executor right now.' She asked to see Mr. Doyle and Mr. Decker left saying that he would report their conversation to Mr. Doyle. Mr. Decker reported to Mr. Doyle who visited with Mrs. Watson and then told Mr. Decker to draw the will in accordance with Mrs. Watson's instructions. Mr. Decker drew the will, delivered it to Mr. Doyle and on July 2, 1960 it was executed by Mrs. Watson. She died two days later without having made any further disposition of her property. The will directed that the debts and funeral expenses be paid and Milton Bunnell of Jersey City be engaged as undertaker and devised to Mr. and Mrs. Doyle the house 'including furniture screens, kitchen utensils and all other contents.' It did not contain any residuary clause nor did it name any executor.

On July 14, 1960 Mr. Decker filed his complaint in the Hudson County Surrogate's Court seeking probate of Mrs. Watson's will and letters of administration c.t.a. The complaint set forth that no executor had been named in the will and that the heirs and next of kin consisted of Evelyn Allen Mace, niece, James G. Allen of California, nephew, Florence E. Metzler of Long Island, niece, Annie E. Elmendorf of Long Island, niece, Lily Allen Powell of Ireland, sister, Molly Allen of England, niece, and Ivor Allen of England, nephew. Renuciations in Mr. Decker's favor by Evelyn Allen Mace of Jersey City and by Mr. and Mrs. Doyle were filed with the complaint and on July 14, 1960 the Hudson County Surrogate ordered that the will be admitted to probate and that letters of administration c.t.a. be issued to William E. Decker. Since the issuance of the letters of administration c.t.a., Mr. Decker has obtained renunciations in his favor from all of the other heirs and next of kin named in the complaint. The renunciation of James Geddes Allen was executed on July 28, 1960, those of Annie E. Metzler (Elmendorf) and Florence E. Metzler were executed on July 29, 1960, that of Lily Allen Powell was executed on August 16, 1960, that of Ivor Basil Wilfred Allen was executed on September 9, 1960, and that of Molly Allen was executed on September 2, 1960 and re-executed on September 17, 1960.

After his appointment as administrator c.t.a. Mr. Decker, in the company of Mr. Doyle and Mrs. Mace, went to the house which had been devised by Mrs. Watson to the Doyles and located a box which contained securities and a key to a safe deposit box which contained additional securities. The Surrogate was advised and in accordance with his order dated July 20, 1960 the securities were placed with the First National Bank of Jersey City as custodian. On August 26, 1960 the Surrogate entered an order issuing general letters of administration upon the estate of Belinda Watson to Mr. Joseph Keane, a total stranger to the estate, with a law office in Jersey City. There was never any notice to the heirs or next of kin nor were there ever any renunciations in favor of Mr. Keane but his complaint which was dated August 26, 1960 contained the folllowing: 'All next of kin have filed renunciations with the Surrogate. See Surrogate's Order appointed plaintiff, General Administrator August 26, 1960.'

On September 6, 1960 Mr. Decker and Mrs. Mace, acting through their attorney Mr. McMaster, obtained an order to show cause why the order issuing general letters of administration to Mr. Keane should not be vacated. An affidavit by Mrs. Mace in support of the motion to vacate set forth that she was the only next of kin who was resident in New Jersey and that she had waived her right of administration and had requested that Mr. Decker be appointed administrator; she further stated that all of the next of kin whom she knew and had been able to locate had requested that Mr. Decker 'be appointed administrator with the will annexed of the late Belinda Watson, and if necessary request that he be appointed the administrator of that estate.' An affidavit by Mr. Decker set forth that he had taken possession of all of the assets of the estate known to him; that an order fixing the time for creditors to file claims had been taken; that the New Jersey transfer inheritance tax return had been filed as well as the federal estate tax preliminary notice; that the funeral bill, the doctor's bill and the hospital bill had been paid by him; and that 'distribution of the estate can be made when the period for creditors to file their claims has expired and the New Jersey and Federal Estate taxes are fixed and paid.'

On September 13, 1960 Mr. Keane obtained an order to show cause why the order appointing Mr. Decker as administrator c.t.a. should not be vacated. This order to show cause, together with the earlier one obtained by Mr. Decker, were brought on for hearing before the Hudson County Court which took testimony on September 30, 1960 and thereafter filed an opinion reported at 64 N.J.Super. 111, 165 A.2d 316 (1960). The judgment entered pursuant to that opinion revoked the letters issued to Mr. Decker and Mr. Keane and appointed Mr. Frank J. Doyle and Mr. John Drewen as co-administrators c.t.a. and also general administrators of the estate of Belinda Watson. Mr. Decker, joined by Mrs. Mace, filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division and Mr. Keane did the same. Cf. 3 Page, Wills § 26.55 (Bowe-Parker Revision 1951); 7 N.J. Practice Clapp, Wills and Administration § 981 (1950); Howard Savings Inst. of Newark, N.J. v. Peep, 34 N.J. 494, 170 A.2d 39 (1961). We certified their appeals on our own motion while they were pending in the Appellate Division.

All of the briefs submitted to this court advance points which rest heavily on procedural technicalities and niceties; to the extent that they have no real relation to the actual merits of the controversy they may safely and should justly be passed by here. See Handelman v. Handelman, 17 N.J. 1, 10, 109 A.2d 797 (1954); Vanderwart v. Dept. of Civil Service, 19 N.J. 341, 347, 117 A.2d 5 (1955); Grosso v. City of Paterson, 33 N.J. 477, 481, 166 A.2d 161 (1960). In filling the void left by the decedent's failure to name an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Alexandravicus' Estate, In re, A--143
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1961
    ...denied 343 U.S. 928, 72 S.Ct. 761, 96 L.Ed. 1338 (1952); cf. N.J.S. 3A:2--3, N.J.S.A.; N.J.S. 3A:2--5, N.J.S.A.; In re Estate of Watson, 35 N.J. 402, 173 A.2d 266 (1961). That Rule provides that when a dispute arises in the Surrogate's Court as to any matter the Surrogate's Court shall not ......
  • Alexandravicus' Estate, In re
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • April 17, 1964
    ...underlying the appointment. There was an express direction that the order appointing him contain a provision as in In re Watson, 35 N.J. 402, 410, 173 A.2d 266, 270 (1961), for leave 'to all interested persons to apply for the designation of a different administrator or such other relief as......
  • Schumanns' Estate, In re
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • July 30, 1973
    ...lacks even the power to determine questions arising within the sphere of his responsibility. N.J.S.A. 3A:2--5; In re Watson, 35 N.J. 402, 409, 173 A.2d 266 (1961). There is no doubt at all that the surrogate may not undertake to construe a will. For the surrogate here to deny probate, not o......
  • Stephens' Estate, In re
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • October 27, 1961
    ...their own complaint for administration. In re Estate of Alexandravicus, 35 N.J. 230, 233, 172 A.2d 641 (1961); In re Estate of Watson, 35 N.J. 402, 409, 173 A.2d 266 (1961). Once a dispute arises, the surrogate 'shall not act except in accordance with the order or judgment of the County Cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT