MATTER OF FELLO, N.Y. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This proceeding arises from a residuary beneficiary's effort to set aside a contract for the sale of real property belonging to the estate of William J. Fello, deceased. Dorothy Fello, a residuary beneficiary along with her brother Anthony Fello, challenged a contract entered into by the decedent's executor, Carmine Fello, and the purchaser, Anthony Mazzarella. The contested property was part of the estate not specifically devised under the will. The Surrogate's Court of Nassau County initially granted the application to set aside the contract following a hearing. The purchasers and successor executrix appealed that order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the residuary beneficiaries' election to take the property in kind extinguished the executor's power to sell the real property under the decedent's will and New York law.
Whether the executor had valid authority to enter into the contract of sale absent an unequivocal election by all residuary beneficiaries to take the property in kind.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner (Dorothy Fello)

Argued that she and her brother, as residuary beneficiaries, elected to take the property in kind prior to the sale, which extinguished the executor's power to sell.
Her attorney stated that Anthony Fello was "equally opposed to the sale," implying a joint election against the sale.

Respondents (Executor and Purchaser)

Maintained that the executor had express statutory and testamentary power to sell the property not specifically devised under the will.
Contended that no unequivocal election to take the property in kind was made by all residuary beneficiaries before the contract was executed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Trask v. Sturges, 170 N.Y. 482	Requirement that election to take property in kind must be unequivocally made by all interested beneficiaries to bar executor's power of sale.	Held that petitioner’s unilateral expression was insufficient without brother’s unequivocal election; thus executor retained power of sale.
Mellen v. Mellen, 139 N.Y. 210	Same principle regarding the necessity of a clear election by all residuary beneficiaries.	Reinforced that executor’s power to sell remains unless all beneficiaries make an unequivocal election.
Prentice v. Janssen, 79 N.Y. 478	Supports the principle of election affecting executor’s authority.	Referenced as part of the established rule on election and executor’s powers.
Hetzel v. Barber, 69 N.Y. 1	Addresses election by beneficiaries and its effect on executor’s powers.	Used to affirm the necessity of unanimous election to bar executor’s sale authority.
Matter of Maratto, 138 N.Y.S.2d 791	Clarifies that executor’s power of sale remains unless all beneficiaries timely and unequivocally elect to take property in kind.	Applied to conclude that absent brother’s unequivocal election, executor’s sale was valid.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the executor's authority under the decedent's will and New York statutory law, which granted the executor express and implied powers to sell real property not specifically devised. It examined whether the residuary beneficiaries' election to take the property in kind had extinguished this power. The court emphasized the well-established principle that such an election must be unequivocally made by all interested beneficiaries prior to the sale to bar the executor’s power. Although Dorothy Fello clearly expressed her desire to take the property in kind before the contract’s execution, there was no unequivocal communication from her brother, Anthony Fello, until after the proceeding began. The attorney’s statement that Anthony was "equally opposed" to the sale did not constitute an unequivocal election. Consequently, the court held that the executor retained a valid power of sale and reversed the Surrogate’s Court order setting aside the contract.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appellate court reversed the Surrogate's Court order, denied the application to set aside the contract of sale, and dismissed the petition. The executor’s sale contract was upheld as valid.

Implications: This decision confirms that under New York law and the terms of the decedent’s will, an executor’s power to sell real property not specifically devised remains intact unless all residuary beneficiaries make a timely and unequivocal election to take the property in kind. The ruling clarifies the procedural requirement for such an election and reinforces the executor’s authority in the absence of unanimous beneficiary action. No new precedent was established beyond applying existing principles to the facts.

Show full summary ...

In the Matter of the Estate of WILLIAM J. FELLO, Deceased. DOROTHY FELLO, Respondent; ANTHONY MAZZARELLA et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding by a residuary beneficiary to set aside a contract for the sale of real property entered into by the decedent's executor, the purchaser and the successor executrix separately appeal from an order of the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated July 21, 1981, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the application and set aside the contract of sale. Order reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable personally by petitioner, application denied and petition dismissed. Petitioner Dorothy Fello and her brother Anthony Fello were named as residuary beneficiaries under the last will and testament of their father, William J. Fello. In this proceeding, petitioner seeks to set aside a contract for the sale of real property, entered into between Carmine Fello, as executor, and Anthony Mazzarella, as purchaser. The property in question is a part of the decedent's estate which was not specifically devised under the will. The decedent's will provided, in part, that the executor was to have "all the express and implied powers granted by the laws of the State of New York". Accordingly, the executor was vested with the power to sell any of decedent's real property which had not been specifically devised (see EPTL 11-1.1, subd [b], par [5], cl [B]). Petitioner claims, however, that prior to the execution of the contract of sale, she and her brother, as residuary beneficiaries entitled to the proceeds of the sale, elected to take the property in kind, thereby extinguishing the executor's power of sale (see Trask v Sturges, 170 N.Y. 482; Mellen v. Mellen, 139 N.Y. 210; Prentice v Janssen, 79 N.Y. 478; Hetzel v. Barber, 69 N.Y. 1). In order for such an election to bar a sale by an executor, it must be unequivocally exercised by all of the interested beneficiaries ( Trask v. Sturges, supra; Mellen v. Mellen, supra; Matter of Maratto, 138 N.Y.S.2d 791). While it is clear that petitioner unequivocally expressed her desire to take the property in kind prior to execution of the contract, there was no communication from Anthony Fello, the other residuary beneficiary, until after the commencement of this proceeding. Although in the letter which expressed petitioner's desire to take the property in kind, petitioner's attorney stated that he was "advised that Anthony Fello, the other residuary legatee, is equally opposed to the sale", such a statement cannot be construed as an "unequivocal" expression of Anthony Fello's intent. Absent a timely election to take the property in kind by both residuary beneficiaries, the executor had a valid power of sale (see Matter of Maratto, supra). Accordingly, the application to set aside the contract should be denied. Titone, J.P., Mangano, Bracken and Boyers, JJ., concur. [ 109 Misc.2d 744.]

MATTER OF FELLO