The decedent had three children. In 1997, he and one of his children (Peter) were named as defendants in a personal injury lawsuit. Shortly before the trial was set to take place, the decedent transferred his house in Brick to another of his children (David). The 2000 deed transferred the property to David for $125,000, although David never paid any money at the time of the transfer. The personal injury lawsuit settled in 2001, but the Brick property was never transferred back to the decedent.
The decedent also had USAA bank accounts which named David as a joint account holder. In 2020, David transferred approximately $189,000 from those accounts to an account in his own name. David, however, provided proof that $80,000 of that amount was returned to the decedent’s account.
Following his death, the decedent’s daughter, who was named executor of his estate, filed a verified complaint against David, alleging improvident gifts, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment. She alleged that the decedent had always intended to divide his estate equally among his three children, and she asked the court to void the Brick deed and order the return of the USAA funds to the estate.
David’s answer to the complaint included the statute of limitations as a separate defense. In their opening statement at trial, his counsel argued that the estate’s claim to void the Brick deed was barred by the statute of limitations.
After hearing the evidence, the trial court ruled on the merits of the claims, without addressing the statute of limitations argument. It found that the testimony of David’s siblings regarding their father’s intent to treat his children equally was credible, and that David’s testimony was not. It concluded that the 2000 transfer of the Brick property was “a temporary shield against a lawsuit, rather than a permanent gift….” Therefore, the trial court voided that deed and declared the property to be part of the estate.
On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded that part of the trial court’s decision, because the trial court had not addressed the issue of the statute of limitations argument.
The trial court had also found that the USAA funds belonged to the decedent, and determined that $189,000 from those accounts were assets of the estate. On appeal, because the trial court had not addressed David’s return of $80,000 of that money, the Appellate Division also reversed and remanded that portion of the trial court’s order.
A copy of the Superior Court Appellate Division decision in In re Estate of Guirguess can be found here.