Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

ALBERT WOLL AND VIRGINIA WOLL, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WILLARD WOLL, DECEASED, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, v. MATTHEW DUGAS, AN INFANT BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOHN D. MORRISON, GRAHAM C. DUGAS, JR., JANE DUGAS FROJEN AND AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND CROSS-RESPONDENTS, AND CITIZENS FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF RIDGEWOOD, NEW JERSEY, AS EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE OF THE WILL OF CELEONOR E. WOLL (KNOWN ALSO AS ELEONOR WOLL), DECEASED, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

PER CURIAM.

The issue before the Trial Judge was whether Matthew Woll and Celeonor Woll, his wife, had entered into a valid oral agreement in 1949 to execute identical, mutual, reciprocal and irrevocable wills, to dispose of their combined estates. After a full hearing he concluded "that the aforesaid agreement has been established by evidence that is cogent, clear and convincing, and which has left no doubt in the court's mind as to the parties actually having entered into such an agreement."

We have considered the entire record and find substantial credible evidence therein to justify the conclusions reached by Judge Lora. We are in accord with the views expressed in his opinion reported in 104 N.J. Super. 586 (Ch. 1969).

On this appeal at oral argument appellants contended that the real estate located in New Jersey of which Celeonor died seized should not have been impressed with a constructive trust because she obtained the fee thereto as the surviving tenant by the entirety, and not from her husband's estate. This contention was not raised or considered by Judge Lora, nor was it included in the briefs before us. Under the circumstances it may not be presented for the first time on appeal. Oradell Village, et al. v. Township of Wayne, 101 N.J. Super. 403 (App.Div. 1968), aff'd 53 N.J. 496 (1969). In any event, we see no merit to the contention.

Affirmed in all respects. No costs.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WOLL v. DUGAS
(Nov 30, 1970)