In re Marcus Trusts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Marcus Trusts

297 A.D.2d 683, 747 N.Y.2d 187

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 16, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 683 (In re Marcus Trusts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Marcus Trusts, 297 A.D.2d 683, 747 N.Y.2d 187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In the early 1970’s, the appellant Roberta Serota Doben executed powers of appointment over four trusts in favor of her brother Arnold Marcus. The appointments were irrevocable. In 1997, Roberta exercised her power of appointment over these same trusts in favor of her husband, the appellant Irwin H. Doben, and her son, the appellant Steven Serota. Shortly thereafter, Arnold Marcus purported to exercise the powers of ap[684]*684pointment granted to him by Roberta’s earlier exercise. The trustee then commenced this proceeding to determine the validity of the various exercises.

The Surrogate’s Court properly rejected the appellants’ argument that Roberta’s exercise of her powers of appointment in the early 1970’s was invalid. The existence of a family relationship does not, per se, present a presumption of constructive fraud or undue influence. Rather, there must be evidence of other facts and circumstances showing inequality or controlling influence (see Feiden v Feiden, 151 AD2d 889, 891), and here there was no such showing.

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In the early 1970’s, the appellant Roberta Serota Doben executed powers of appointment over four trusts in favor of her brother Arnold Marcus. The appointments were irrevocable. In 1997, Roberta exercised her power of appointment over these same trusts in favor of her husband, the appellant Irwin H. Doben, and her son, the appellant Steven Serota. Shortly thereafter, Arnold Marcus purported to exercise the powers of ap[684]*684pointment granted to him by Roberta’s earlier exercise. The trustee then commenced this proceeding to determine the validity of the various exercises.

The Surrogate’s Court properly rejected the appellants’ argument that Roberta’s exercise of her powers of appointment in the early 1970’s was invalid. The existence of a family relationship does not, per se, present a presumption of constructive fraud or undue influence. Rather, there must be evidence of other facts and circumstances showing inequality or controlling influence (see Feiden v Feiden, 151 AD2d 889, 891), and here there was no such showing.

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 683, 747 N.Y.2d 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marcus-trusts-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack