A New Jersey appellate court held that intentionally withholding information in mediation does not invalidate the resulting settlement agreement. Matter of the Estate of Lillian L. Fischer, Deceased (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., No. A-0091-10T2, June 14, 2011)(unpublished).
This matter involved a probate dispute between Catherine S. Richards, the 91 year old domestic partner of the decedent, Lillian Fischer (who was 86 years old when she passed away), and Emma Hinman, the decedent’s 90 year old sister. Following Fischer’s death, Richards was appointed administratrix of her estate. Approximately one month later, Hinman filed a complaint and order to show cause seeking to remove Richards as administratrix. The matter was referred to mediation, and the parties reached agreement soon thereafter. A settlement agreement was signed by the parties, and the Court entered an Order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The parties’ settlement agreement stated that the domestic partner would receive all securities set forth on Schedule A in the agreement, while, in return, the decedent’s sister received a parcel of real estate plus “all other” estate assets.
Sometime thereafter, Hinman claimed that she was entitled to certain “additional assets” – stock certificates of publicly-traded companies – not identified in Schedule A of the parties’ agreement. The domestic partner objected, and the matter went back to Court. During pre-trial discovery, the sister admitted that she knew about the additional assets in the decedent’s estate before the settlement agreement was signed, but intentionally withheld the information concerning the additional assets from the domestic partner during mediation. A one-day trial was held, and the trial court ruled in favor of the sister.
The domestic partner appealed, seeking the recovery of the undisclosed assets, and alleging that the sister’s failure to disclose the additional assets breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the settlement agreement, and constituted fraud. Thereafter, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the trial court ruling. The appeals court held, first, that, “[T]he implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not require either side in negotiations to reveal any and all information that might help the adversary and hurt his or her own client.” Second, the Court ruled that no fraud occurred because “silence may constitute fraud [only] where there is a duty to disclose … [P]arties have no duty to disclose “unless a fiduciary relationship exists between them … [but here] no fiduciary relationship existed between [the parties] … .”
Further, the Court noted that both sides were represented by legal counsel, and the sister did not thwart or obstruct litigational discovery. As a result, the decedent’s sister, who intentionally withheld material information during mediation, ending up owning the assets she intentionally failed to disclose to the domestic partner during the mediation.
The case is annexed here – Matter of the Estate of Lillian L. Fischer, Deceased
Discussion of case: – In my opinion, the appeals court decision is not a just result, and would tend to encourage deception in mediation. However, not everyone agrees with that analysis. For example, one participant in a mediation listserv discussion explained the result as follows:
Key to the trial court’s and Appellate Division’s conclusions that the sister, not the domestic partner, should get the undisclosed shares, is the wording of the settlement agreement, which stated that in consideration for the domestic partner receiving Schedule A stocks, sister would get a piece of real estate plus “all other” estate assets. Domestic partner had the ability to undertake due diligence. She had the ability to get a representation from the sister as to the sister’s knowledge of any other estate assets. She did neither.
It’s a close call and an interesting decision. I am not outraged by the result.
As a result of the above, I must add a “Note to Self: Always add protective language in a settlement agreement stating that both sides represent that they’ve disclosed everything to the other party.”
Categories
- Affordable Care Act
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Arbitration
- Attorney Ethics
- Attorneys Fees
- Beneficiary Designations
- Blog Roundup and Highlights
- Blogs and Blogging
- Care Facilities
- Caregivers
- Cemetery
- Collaborative Family Law
- Conservatorships
- Consumer Fraud
- Contempt
- Contracts
- Defamation
- Developmental Disabilities
- Discovery
- Discrimination Laws
- Doctrine of Probable Intent
- Domestic Violence
- Elder Abuse
- Elder Law
- Elective Share
- End-of-Life Decisions
- Estate Administration
- Estate Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Events
- Family Law
- Fiduciary
- Financial Exploitation of the Elderly
- Funeral
- Future of the Legal Profession
- Geriatric Care Managers
- Governmental or Public Benefit Programs
- Guardianship
- Health Issues
- Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
- In Remembrance
- Insolvent Estates
- Institutional Liens
- Insurance
- Interesting New Cases
- Intestacy
- Law Firm News
- Law Firm Videos
- Law Practice Management / Development
- Lawyers and Lawyering
- Legal Capacity or Competancy
- Legal Malpractice
- Legal Rights of the Disabled
- Liens
- Litigation
- Mediation
- Medicaid Appeals
- Medicaid Applications
- Medicaid Planning
- Annuities
- Care Contracts
- Divorce
- Estate Recovery
- Family Part Non-Dissolution Support Orders
- Gifts
- Life Estates
- Loan repayments
- MMMNA
- Promissory Notes
- Qualified Income Trusts
- Spousal Refusal
- Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid
- Transfers to "Caregiver" Child(ren)
- Transfers to Disabled Adult Children
- Trusts
- Undue Hardship Provision
- Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act
- New Cases
- New Laws
- News Briefs
- Newsletters
- Non-Probate Assets
- Nursing Facility Litigation
- Personal Achievements and Awards
- Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Probate
- Punitive Damages
- Reconsideration
- Retirement Benefits
- Reverse Mortgages
- Section 8 Housing
- Settlement of Litigation
- Social Media
- Special Education
- Special Needs Planning
- Surrogate Decision-Making
- Taxation
- Technology
- Texting
- Top Ten
- Trials
- Trustees
- Uncategorized
- Veterans Benefits
- Web Sites and the Internet
- Webinar
- Writing Intended To Be A Will
Vanarelli & Li, LLC on Social Media