In re the Estate of Cunanan

119 Misc. 2d 256, 462 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1983 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3497
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedApril 13, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 Misc. 2d 256 (In re the Estate of Cunanan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Estate of Cunanan, 119 Misc. 2d 256, 462 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1983 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3497 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1983).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Bernard L. Reagan, S.

The decedents, Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, husband, and Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan, wife, died testate residents of the Town of Pompey, County of Onondaga, State of New York, on January 9, 1982. The Cunanans’ three minor and unmarried daughters — Jocelyn, age 18, Jacqueline, age 16, and Josephine, age 14, died intestate on January 9, 1982.

All five Cunanans died in a “common disaster”, the result of a tragic house fire.

Dr. Jose F. Cunanan left him surviving five brothers and sisters, namely, Rafael F. Cunanan, brother; Priscila Cunanan Bautista, sister; Lydia Cunanan Ignacio, sister; Felipe F. Cunanan, brother; and Loreto Cunanan Concepcion, sister; all residents of the Philippines and Filipino citizens.

[257]*257Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan left her surviving her mother, Salud Teodoro Vda. de Perez, a Filipino citizen, living at 274 Mohican Way, Fort Lee, "New Jersey.

Dr. Jose F. Cunanan executed a last will and testament dated August 23, 1979.

Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan executed a last will and testament dated August 27, 1979.

Both of these testamentary instruments were admitted to probate by this court on April 7, 1982 and letters testamentary were issued on April 7, 1982 to Rafael G. Cunanan, the alternate executor named in said wills.

The petitioner, Salud T. Vda. de Perez, mother of the deceased, Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan, petitions this court for a construction of article VIII of the last will and testament of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and a construction of article VIII of the last will and testament of Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan, and to establish the legal heir or heirs of said Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan for purposes of distribution of estate assets.

In the construction of a will, it is fundamental that we look for the intention of the testator and testatrix (Matter of Kosek, 31 NY2d 475; Matter of Fabbri, 2 NY2d 236).

Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan are the sole primary beneficiaries of each other’s will.

Article VIII of the will of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan states: “If my wife, evelyn p. cunanan, and I shall die under such circumstances that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the order of our deaths, then it shall be presumed that I predeceased her, and my estate shall be administered and distributed, in all respects, in accordance with such presumption”.

Article VIII of the will of Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan states: “If my husband, jóse f. cunanan, and I shall die under such circumstances that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the order of our deaths, then it shall be presumed that he predeceased me, and my estate shall be administered and distributed, in all respects, in accordance with such presumption”.

[258]*258There has been no evidence presented to this court to contradict that Mr. and Mrs. Cunanan and their three daughters died otherwise than simultaneously.

The problem presented when two or more persons die in a common disaster, there being no evidence as to the order of death, is an intricate one, not easily solved without recourse to arbitrary rules of law.

Absent a provision in the will, and where there is no evidence, or uncertain evidence, as to whether the testators or the objects of their gifts were first to die, EPTL 2-1.6 will control. This section re-enacts former section 89 of the Decedent Estate Law without change (revisers’ notes, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 17B, EPTL 2-1.6, p 110).

The effect of EPTL 2-1.6 may be avoided by using a “Simultaneous Death” provision. EPTL 2-1.6 (subd [e]) provides in part: “This section shall not apply in the case of wills * * * wherein a provision other than that prescribed by this section has been made for the disposition of property.”

In Matter of Fowles (222 NY 222), it was held that the testator knew the law created no presumption as to the order of death and, therefore, indicated his wish under the circumstances. The testator’s intent would be given effect and the legacies to his wife passed to the executor of the wife under the provision.

Dr. Jose F. Cunanan’s will leaves everything to his wife, if she survives; otherwise, in trust for the children, with article VIII containing a “Common Disaster” clause. The executor of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan’s estate argues that since the decedent left brothers and sisters, and a nephew in the United States whom he named executor, it would be a tortured construction of his intent which would conclude he intended, if all five were killed in a common disaster, that his entire estate should end up in the hands of his mother-in-law.

The executor advises the court that the deceased husband’s assets are as follows:

[259]

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

Related

Amex Assurance Co. v. Caripides
179 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D. New York, 2002)
In re the Estate of Cunanan
103 A.D.2d 1039 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 Misc. 2d 256, 462 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1983 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-cunanan-nysurct-1983.