In re Eckart’s Estate, 39 N.Y.2d 493 (1976)

A disinheritance clause in a will, explicitly stating the testator’s intent to exclude certain heirs from inheriting beyond a nominal bequest, is enforceable and precludes those heirs from contesting a charitable bequest under EPTL 5-3.3, even if it allows the testator to circumvent the statute’s intended protections.

Summary

Julia Eckart’s will left the bulk of her estate to a charity, with only nominal bequests to her children and an explicit clause disinheriting them beyond those bequests. The children contested the charitable disposition under EPTL 5-3.3, which limits charitable bequests to half of the estate if contested by issue or parents. The court addressed whether the disinheritance clause prevented the children from having standing to contest the will, given that a successful contest would not necessarily result in a pecuniary benefit for them. The Court of Appeals held that the disinheritance clause was enforceable, preventing the children from contesting the will, reaffirming the principle established in Matter of Cairo despite criticisms that it allows testators to easily circumvent the statute’s intent.

Facts

Julia Eckart executed a will leaving $50 each to her two children, Charlotte Eckart and Frank Darmody. The will contained a clause stating that she made no further testamentary provision for her children for good reason, and she intentionally made no provision for any other relatives. The remainder of her estate was left to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. After the will was probated, the children filed a notice of election to contest the testamentary disposition for charitable purposes.

Procedural History

The Surrogate’s Court found that Matter of Cairo was not controlling and that the children had standing to contest the will. The Appellate Division affirmed by a divided court, with one justice concurring on the grounds that Cairo was wrongly decided. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a disinheritance clause in a will, explicitly stating the testator’s intent to exclude certain heirs, prevents those heirs from having standing to contest a charitable bequest under EPTL 5-3.3, when a successful contest might not result in a pecuniary benefit for them due to the stated intent to disinherit.

Holding

No, because the disinheritance clause is enforceable and prevents the children from benefiting from a successful contest, thereby negating their standing under EPTL 5-3.3.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the disinheritance clause was essentially identical to the one in Matter of Cairo, where a similar clause was held to preclude an heir from contesting a charitable bequest. The Court acknowledged criticisms that Cairo allows testators to easily circumvent the statute designed to protect issue and parents from being disinherited by excessive gifts to charity. However, the Court emphasized the importance of stare decisis, especially in cases involving property transfer, where settled rules are necessary and relied upon. While recognizing the potential for error in Cairo, the Court noted that the statute itself allows for similar circumvention through gifts over to non-qualified contestants. Therefore, the Court concluded that changing the established rule would not alter the net result, and any constructive change should come from the Legislature. The court stated, “True, Cairo permits a testator to easily avoid the statute by expressly disinheriting those who might otherwise challenge the will. But the statute itself permits the same result if the testator simply creates a gift over to one not qualified to contest. In other words it is the statute itself and not the Cairo opinion which disrupts the stated legislative purpose.”