Watts v. Swiss Bank Corp.
| Citation | 33 A.D.2d 102,305 N.Y.S.2d 233 |
| Decision Date | 25 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | MEYER-LANARI and E |
| Parties | Sewell S. WATTS, Jr., and I. Manning Parsons, Jr., as Executors of the Estate of Roberta Maccoun Lanari, deceased, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. SWISS BANK CORPORATION, Defendant. SWISS BANK CORPORATION, Defendant and Interpleading Plaintiff, v. Maria Elenadwin L. Gasperini, Ancillary Administrator withthe Will Annexed of the Eatate of Aristide Lanari, deceased, InterpleadedDefendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Bernard J. Reverdin, New York City, of counsel (Lovejoy, Wasson, Lundgren & Ashton, New York City, attorneys) for appellants.
Gerald J. Dunworth, New York City, of counsel (Mark D. Lebow, New York City, on the brief; Coudert Brothers, New York City, attorneys) for respondents.
Before CAPOZZOLI, J.P., and TILZER, MARKEWICH, NUNEZ, and McNALLY, JJ.
This appeal involves a dispute over the ownership of assets in an account held at the New York office of defendant and interpleading plaintiff, Swiss Bank Corporation. Plaintiffs-respondents claim title through the deceased second wife of decedent, Aristide Lanari. Interpleaded defendants-appellants claim title since one of them is the daughter of the decedent. This is an appeal from a judgment rendered after trial to the court, entered June 27, 1969, in which the court refused to grant comity to a French judgment and held that the account was a survivorship account. Some aspects of this case have been here previously (24 A.D.2d 849, 264 N.Y.S.2d 667; 30 A.D.2d 791, 292 N.Y.S. 205, 602, cases #3 and 4).
The record discloses the following facts:
The account was opened by Aristide Lanari and his wife Roberta on November 18, 1960. Aristide died on September 8, 1961 domiciled in La Turbie, France, leaving a will dated January 22, 1959, executed in Monte Carlo. He was survived by his second wife, Roberta, and a daughter of his first marriage, the interpleaded defendant Maria Elena Meyer-Lanari.
Aristide Lanari and his second wife, Roberta, maintained a joint survivorship account with Swiss Bank Corporation in New York City. In March 1962, after the death of Aristide, his only child Maria, who was his daughter by his first wife, brought suit against Roberta in France. The purpose of the suit was to enforce in Maria's favor the so-called Forced Heirship Laws of France which at the time entitled her to three-fourths of her father's estate. Roberta appeared in the suit on June 7, 1962. Two days later she died, leaving as heirs three sisters to whom she bequeathed her entire estate except for legacies of insufficient significance. The sisters were substituted for Roberta in the French action. They defended it and it proceeded to a decision in favor of Maria, which on appeal to the Court of Appeals of Aix-en-Provence by the sisters was sustained. The French courts determined that Lanari was domiciled in France, that the law of France whas applicable with respect to his personal property wherever located, that the assets in the joint account were constituted from his personal assets, that the creation of the account was void with respect to Maria.
After the commencement of the French litigation Roberta brought, and after her death respondents as executors of her estate continued, the instant action against Swiss Bank Corporation to recover the property in the joint account. Appellants Maria and the ancillary administrator c.t.a. of Lanari's estate were interpleaded.
Under French law it was not possible for Aristide to donate to his wife Roberta more than one-fourth of his assets.
The French judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Aixen-Provence on October 22, 1964. It expressly affirmed that French law governed the succession of all the personal property of Aristide, a domiciliary of France, and overruled the contention of the appellants there to the effect that the law of New York governed the validity of the joint account.
It is conceded that the judgment of the French appellate court is final and conclusive.
We have held in this case that 'Under principles of comity, our courts should give full effect to a judgment rendered by a French court of competent jurisdiction.' (24 A.D.2d 849, 850, 264 N.Y.S.2d 667, 668). The record establishes jurisdiction of the French court, identity of parties, identity of issues and finality of determination.
Plaintiffs, executors of the estate of Roberta, are bound by the determination in the action instituted in France and continued against the successors in interest and residuary legatees of their testatrix. (Matter of Zietz's Estate, 207 Misc. 22, 135 N.Y.S.2d 573, affd. 285 App.Div. 1147, 143 N.Y.S.2d 602.) Moreover, plaintiffs, husbands of two of the said residuary legatees, and the three residuary legatees, authorized the attorneys who had represented Roberta in France to retain counsel to appear in the French action for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watts v. Swiss Bank Corp.
...attempted transfer in violation of this statute is void in its entirety upon the challenge of a child of a first marriage (33 A.D.2d 102, 103, 305 N.Y.S.2d 233, 234). One month later, on April 5, 1962, the widow instituted this action in New York against the bank to compel a turnover of the......