SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE
DIVISION
HENRY MANGARELLI, JR.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY A.
MANGARELLI,,
v.
RUTH E. SNYDER,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
|
Submitted April 16, 2012 - Decided
Before Judges Parrillo and Grall.
On appeal from Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County,
Docket No. L-2007-09.
Robert J. Stack, attorney for appellant.
Piro, Zinna, Cifelli, Paris & Genitempo,
attorneys for respondent (Alan Genitempo,
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
This
appeal involves a dispute between half-siblings about the shifting of their
father's assets to an account that passed outside his will that was
accomplished during the illness that preceded their father's death. Although plaintiff Henry Mangarelli, Jr.
was designated as their father's sole beneficiary in his will, Henry
Mangarelli, Sr. placed the bulk of his assets in an account he held jointly
with his daughter, defendant Ruth E. Snyder, prior to his death.
Following
his father's death, plaintiff commenced this action alleging that defendant
exerted undue influence, inducing their father to establish and fund the joint
account. The case was tried to
Judge Rothstadt, who found in favor of plaintiff and entered a $176,959.98
judgment.
Defendant
appeals, arguing that the judgment rests on the judge's clearly erroneous
determination that she had a confidential relationship with her father that
gave rise to a presumption of undue influence that she was obligated to rebut. Her objections are not to the judge's
legal conclusions, but to his evaluation of the testimony and the witnesses'
credibility. We have reviewed the
record in light of the arguments presented and concluded that the judgment is
"based on findings of fact which are adequately supported by
evidence," R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), and that defendant's arguments
"are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion," R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge
Rothstadt in the opinion he filed on April 5, 2011. We provide only a brief summary of the facts the judge found
and his legal conclusions.
Henry
Mangarelli, Sr. died on January 29, 2008.
He was ninety years old. He
lived independently and managed his affairs without difficulty until 2004. At that point, his children began to
notice signs of degeneration such as his loss of a sense of time and his
difficulty recalling where he had left his personal belongings. In January 2005, Henry was
hospitalized. Plaintiff went to
his side, and his father gave him several things he had with him for
safekeeping, including $11,000
consisting of cash and two checks that he had received on withdrawing funds
from his accounts. Henry endorsed
the checks, and because plaintiff did not have access to his father's accounts,
plaintiff deposited the checks in his own account and put the cash in his own
safe.
Following
Henry's release from the hospital, he did not recall making the withdrawals
from his accounts and did not believe plaintiff when he reminded him about the
checks. Plaintiff kept the money
in his account in the hope of convincing his father that he had not stolen the
money. He returned the money
months later when he received a letter from Henry's attorney in June 2005. By Christmas 2005, plaintiff and his
father resumed communications, but Henry still refused to discuss the
$11,000.
Between
January and December 2005, defendant saw her father more frequently than she
had in the past. She went to the
bank with him and, in May 2005, she took her father to an attorney who had
represented her in the past.
Although the attorney advised Henry that they should meet alone, Henry
insisted on defendant's participation.
The
attorney subsequently drafted a new will for Henry and a power of attorney in
favor of defendant. He also
explained to Henry how money could pass outside his will, which the attorney
understood was the method Henry wanted to use to transfer funds to defendant
and to ensure that plaintiff received nothing. According to the lawyer, although he drafted the will to
leave Henry's estate to plaintiff, the plan was that Henry would transfer the
assets to defendant outside the will by establishing a joint account. About the same time, Henry named
defendant as the beneficiary of his annuity account, and in June 2005, this
attorney wrote the letter to plaintiff about the $11,000. Henry signed his new will naming
plaintiff as his beneficiary later that month.
Henry
was hospitalized again early in 2006.
After he was discharged, he and defendant went to a financial advisor
and opened a joint account, listing her address. The advisor consolidated all but one of Henry's accounts
into that joint account. The lone
exception was an account on which the beneficiaries were defendant and plaintiff's
wife.
Between
June 2005 and Henry's death in January 2008, plaintiff and his family were in
regular contact with Henry but never discussed financial matters. Defendant made Henry's funeral
arrangements and paid the expenses and his bills from the account in which she
and plaintiff's wife had an interest.
Apart from the accounts in which defendant had an interest, there was
nothing in Henry's estate other than a truck that plaintiff sold for $5000.
On
those facts, the judge concluded that defendant had a confidential relationship
with her father. Contrary to
defendant's claim, that finding is based on adequate evidence and a proper
application of the law.
Consequently, we cannot disturb it. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am.,
65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974).
The
essential elements of a confidential relationship — confidence in and
dependence upon the person benefited — are present. See Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 34
(1988) (noting the significance of a parent's delegation of authority to manage
legal and financial affairs to a child); Estate of Ostlund v. Ostlund,
391 N.J. Super. 390, 401-02 (App. Div. 2007) (listing characteristics of
a confidential relationship, such as one person's placing confidence in another
who exercises control). Henry
consulted defendant's former attorney, and she accompanied him to meetings with
that attorney despite his advice to the contrary. Henry also had defendant accompany him to meetings with his
financial advisor, and by executing a power of attorney he gave defendant
authority to conduct his legal and financial affairs months before he
established their joint account.
That evidence demonstrates Henry's confidence in defendant and his dependence
upon her relevant to the transactions from which she benefited.
Defendant
argues that a confidential relationship is not enough to give rise to a
presumption of undue influence.
But the judge recognized that the presumption is warranted "[w]hen
there is a confidential relationship coupled with suspicious circumstances." Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J.
275, 303 (2008). The judge found
suspicious circumstances as well.
Here, the judge deemed it suspicious that Henry executed a will naming
plaintiff as the sole beneficiary with a plan to have his assets pass outside,
but he then delayed nearly six months before establishing the joint account
essential to achieve that goal. We
see no basis for disturbing that determination, because it too is supported by
the evidence and consistent with the law.
|
