Appellate Division Found the Trial Court Effectively Disinherited Defendant By Approving the Settlement Agreement
In re Estate of Sandor, No. A-0936-23, 2025 WL 3640043(N.J. Super. App. Div. Dec. 16, 2025)
Ralph Sandor died in 2019. Sandor’s nephew, Anthony Russo, Sr., died after Sandor. Defendant Lottie Russo is the spouse of Russo, Sr. Anthony Russo, Jr. (Russo, Jr.) served as Sandor’s agent pursuant to a power of attorney. Lottie and Russo, Jr. had the same attorney at the trial level.
The various parties have been involved in three lawsuits related to the estate: (1) a 2019 action challenging probate of Sandor’s 2013 and 2014 purported wills and alleging Russo, Jr. convinced Sandor to modify his will to the detriment of other beneficiaries (the probate action); (2) an action by the administrator pendente lite of Sandor’s estate against Russo, Jr. and others seeking to recover gifts made by Russo, Jr. from Sandor’s estate under authority allegedly granted to him by the power of attorney (the claw back action); and (3) an action by Russo, Jr. seeking court approval of his accounting as Sandor’s agent under the power of attorney (the accounting action).
The parties to the probate action reached a tentative settlement. A motion for an order approving the settlement was filed in October, 2020. Pursuant to the settlement, Sandor’s April 2013 will would be admitted to probate but the distribution scheme would be modified pursuant to NJSA 3B:23-9. Three devisees under the will would receive nothing under the settlement and two individuals who were not devisees under the will would receive distributions under the settlement. Lottie’s late husband, Russo, Sr., was a residuary devisee under the will and was not excluded by the settlement.
While Lottie concedes that she received a copy of the 2019 verified complaint, she was not a party to the probate action, and she did not participate in the probate action. Since her late husband’s estate was not excluded by the proposed settlement, Lottie did not file opposition to the October 2020 motion to approve settlement.
The October 2020 motion was withdrawn and a second motion to approve a settlement was filed in July 2023. The proposed distribution omitted Russo, Sr. Lottie opposed the motion, arguing that she was entitled to receive Russo, Sr.’s residuary share as his surviving spouse and that he was improperly excluded.
At oral argument, Lottie’s counsel argued that while Lottie did receive notice of the order to show cause, it was insufficient to trigger opposition to the settlement agreement because Lottie understood it to be admitting the April 25, 2013, will to probate, which Lottie supported as it protected her interests.
The trial court disagreed, finding that Lottie should have participated following service of the order to show cause and verified complaint, or at least identified herself as an interested party. The trial court entered final judgment approving the settlement over Lottie’s objection.
Lottie appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in not considering Lottie’s substantive arguments in opposition to the settlement.
The Appellate Division agreed, “We conclude that the trial court misapplied its discretion in treating defendant’s failure to file an appearance in the probate litigation as a waiver of her right to participate in the settlement. Id. at 11. The trial court instead should have considered the fairness of the settlement agreement in light of the evidence presented. The trial court based its decision to deny defendant’s requested relief solely on her failure to participate in the probate action, which the trial court found to be a waiver of her right to participate in the settlement. Id. Defendant should not be prejudiced by the gap in time from the January 2022 settlement to her August 2023 opposition because plaintiff’s July 2023 motion materially altered the requested relief sought in the verified complaint and the initial October 2020 motion to approve settlement. There would have been no reason for defendant to challenge the initial settlement agreement. Id. at 12. We disagree with the trial court that defendant’s inaction prior to her August 2023 opposition voluntarily or knowingly relinquished her interest in the decedent’s estate. Id. at 13.
The Appellate Division concluded, “In practical effect, by approving the settlement, the trial court improperly disinherited Defendant. Id.