Estate Planning Lessons From New Jersey Supreme Court Will Dispute

Estate Planning Lessons From New Jersey Supreme Court Will Dispute

by | Sep 1, 2026 | Estate Administration, Estate Planning, Last Will and Testament, Legal Bulletin, NJ Supreme Court, Probate

Families often assume that a Last Will and Testament clearly reflects a loved one's wishes and that those wishes will be carried out without controversy. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. A recent decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court, Christakos v. Boyadjis, 262 N.J. 447 (2026), highlights how misunderstandings, outdated estate plans, and last-minute revisions can lead to years of probate litigation and significant expense.

The case involved two brothers, Peter and Nicholas Christakos, who had signed wills in 2003 providing that their estates would pass to one another and, ultimately, to certain family members. More than a decade later, they consulted an attorney about updating their estate plans. During that process, the attorney incorrectly interpreted provisions of the existing Wills and later drafted new Wills that did not fully accomplish what the brothers intended. After both brothers died, multiple probate disputes followed, eventually leading to a legal malpractice lawsuit against the drafting attorney.

The New Jersey Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a family member who was not a client of the attorney could sue the attorney for malpractice. The Court held that, under the circumstances presented, she could not. In adopting Section 51 of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, the Court emphasized that attorneys generally owe duties to their clients, not to every person who might have expected to inherit from an estate. Because there was insufficient evidence that the decedents intended the claimant to be a beneficiary under the later wills, the malpractice claim could not proceed.

Although the decision focuses on attorney liability, the more important takeaway for New Jersey families is the value of careful and proactive estate planning.

One lesson is the importance of regularly reviewing an estate plan. Many people create a Will and never look at it again. Over time, however, family relationships change, beneficiaries pass away, financial circumstances evolve, and personal priorities shift. An estate plan that made perfect sense twenty years ago may no longer reflect a person's wishes today. Regular reviews help ensure that documents remain consistent with current goals and avoid surprises after death. For more information about creating and updating a Will, see my article on Last Wills and Testaments in New Jersey.

The case also demonstrates the importance of clearly expressing testamentary intent (what the person signing the Will intends). Much of the litigation centered on determining what the brothers actually wanted to happen to their property. When estate planning documents leave room for interpretation, surviving family members may spend years fighting over those questions in court. Clear drafting, thorough communication with counsel, and careful documentation of significant decisions can substantially reduce the likelihood of future disputes.

Another important issue is planning before health concerns become urgent. Questions regarding diminished capacity frequently arise when Wills or estate planning documents are executed later in life. While most older adults retain the ability to make valid estate planning decisions, waiting until a medical crisis occurs can increase the risk of challenges after death. Addressing estate planning needs early is often one of the most effective ways to protect both the plan and the family members who may later be called upon to defend it.

The decision is also a reminder that family members should avoid making assumptions about inheritance rights. A relative may have been included in an earlier Will but omitted from a later one. Beneficiary designations, trusts, and revised estate planning documents can dramatically alter who ultimately receives property. Expectations based on old documents or family conversations often lead to disappointment and lawsuits.

For many New Jersey families, real estate is among the most valuable assets in an estate. Questions about who inherits a home, whether the property should be sold, and how ownership transfers after death are common sources of conflict. If you are dealing with inherited real estate, my article on Inherited Homes in New Jersey discusses several of the practical and legal issues that may arise.

The broader lesson of Christakos v. Boyadjis is that good estate planning is not simply about signing documents. It is about creating a legally sound plan that accurately reflects your wishes, communicating those wishes clearly, and revisiting the plan as life changes. Taking those steps can help minimize uncertainty, reduce the risk of expensive probate disputes, and provide peace of mind for both you and your loved ones.

Estate disputes do not always end up in court. In some cases, alternative dispute resolution may offer a more efficient path forward. You can learn more in our article on Arbitration Clauses and New Jersey Will Disputes. Likewise, major life events can have unexpected consequences for inheritance rights, as discussed in my post about Death During a Pending Divorce in New Jersey.

New Jersey’s Medicaid Estate Recovery Reaches Survivorship Claims

New Jersey’s Medicaid Estate Recovery Reaches Survivorship Claims

by | Aug 25, 2026 | Estate Administration, Medicaid, Medicaid Estate Recovery, Probate

In a published decision issued on April 8, 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed a significant question involving Medicaid estate recovery: Can the State recover Medicaid benefits paid during a recipient's lifetime from the proceeds of a survivorship medical malpractice claim brought after the recipient's death?

In Estate of Leonor R. Dizon v. State of New Jersey, Department of Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, 481 N.J. Super. 451 (App. Div. 2025). the court answered that question with a clear yes. The decision confirms the consensus understanding of what constitutes an estate asset for Medicaid recovery purposes and serves as an important reminder for families pursuing litigation on behalf of deceased loved ones.

The Background

The decedent, Leonor Dizon, received Medicaid benefits from 2006 through 2018. After suffering injuries from a fall at a hospital, she died ten days later. Following her death, her estate filed a medical malpractice lawsuit that included survivorship claims. Meanwhile, the New Jersey Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS) asserted a Medicaid estate recovery lien of approximately $214,392, representing Medicaid benefits paid on her behalf after age fifty-five. The estate challenged the lien, arguing that the State's recovery should be limited only to any medical expenses recovered from the lawsuit and should not extend to the entire value of the survivorship claim.

The Legal Issue

At the center of the dispute was the distinction between two Medicaid recovery mechanisms: a) Third-Party Liability Recovery and b) Estate Recovery.New Jersey law permits Medicaid to recover medical expenses from settlements or judgments obtained against responsible third parties. This is commonly known as third-party liability recovery.  In addition, Federal and state law also require Medicaid estate recovery after the death of certain recipients, allowing the State to seek reimbursement from assets belonging to the deceased recipient's estate. The estate argued that proceeds from a survivorship action should be treated only as third-party recovery funds and therefore subject to more limited reimbursement rules. The State argued that survivorship claims are estate assets and therefore available for full estate recovery.

The Court's Decision

The Appellate Division sided with the State and affirmed the validity of the Medicaid lien. The court concluded that a survivorship cause of action is an asset of the decedent's estate and therefore falls within the broad definition of estate property subject to Medicaid estate recovery. The court emphasized several key principles:

1. Survivorship Claims Are Estate Assets

Under New Jersey's Survival Act, claims that belonged to a person before death survive and become assets of the estate. The estate representative essentially steps into the decedent's shoes and may pursue those claims after death. The court rejected the argument that an unfiled medical malpractice claim was merely speculative and therefore not property. Instead, it concluded that the decedent possessed an interest in the potential claim at the time of death, making it part of the estate.

2. Estate Recovery Is Broader Than Third-Party Recovery

The court explained that Medicaid estate recovery is not limited to reimbursement for injury-related medical expenses. Once a Medicaid recipient over age fifty-five dies, the State may pursue recovery from estate assets for all Medicaid benefits properly paid on the recipient's behalf.

3. Federal Anti-Lien Protections Do Not Apply the Same Way After Death

The estate relied heavily on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services v. Ahlborn, which limited Medicaid recovery from a living recipient's settlement. The Appellate Division distinguished that case, finding that the protections applicable to living Medicaid recipients do not prevent estate recovery after death.

Why This Case Matters

This decision has important implications for estate planning and estate administration. Loved ones pursuing survivorship claims should understand that any recovery may be subject to Medicaid estate recovery liens. Failure to investigate outstanding Medicaid claims could complicate estate administration and settlement distributions. Many families assume that a successful medical malpractice or personal injury action will ultimately benefit heirs. This case demonstrates that Medicaid liens may substantially reduce those recoveries when estate recovery laws apply.

The decision highlights the importance of proactive Medicaid planning. Understanding how estate recovery rules interact with litigation claims can help families avoid unexpected consequences and make informed planning decisions.

A Note About Wrongful Death Claims

One important distinction remains. The court noted that wrongful death claims, which seek compensation for the losses suffered by surviving family members, are generally not considered assets of the decedent's estate because those claims belong to the living family members of the deceased. As a result, wrongful death recoveries may be treated differently for Medicaid recovery purposes. Practitioners must carefully distinguish between these causes of action when evaluating potential liens.

Takeaway

The Appellate Division's decision confirms that a survivorship cause of action is an estate asset subject to Medicaid estate recovery. For Medicaid recipients over age fifty-five, the State's recovery rights may extend beyond injury-related medical expenses and reach the broader value of estate assets, including proceeds obtained through survivorship litigation.

Families administering estates that involve Medicaid benefits and pending litigation should carefully evaluate potential estate recovery claims before distributing assets or negotiating settlements.

Yes, You Can Arbitrate an Estate Dispute in New Jersey

Yes, You Can Arbitrate an Estate Dispute in New Jersey

by | Aug 18, 2026 | Estate Administration, Estate Planning, Last Will and Testament, Probate

In a prior post, I explained that you cannot arbitrate a Will dispute in New Jersey — at least not through an arbitration clause buried in the Will itself. That remains the law. But a July 2026 decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division, In re Estate of Roseanne Dyevich, A-1192-24 (App. Div. July 22, 2026), illustrates an important distinction: when the parties themselves voluntarily agree to submit an estate dispute to arbitration, that agreement is enforceable — and the arbitrator's decision is binding and difficult to overturn.

What Happened in the Dyevich Estate

Nicholas and Roseanne Dyevich had four sons: Kevin, James, Thomas, and Michael. After both parents died — Nicholas in 2015 and Roseanne in 2019 — the family found itself in a tangle of litigation. Six separate court matters were pending, involving disputes over the administration of Nicholas's estate, Roseanne's incapacity and guardianship, the disposition of real property, allegations of financial misappropriation, and the conduct of James as executor and guardian.

Rather than litigate all six cases to conclusion, the parties — including a non-family creditor and a corporate entity — agreed to resolve everything through binding arbitration. The arbitrator issued a comprehensive written opinion and a final judgment addressing all of the contested issues. Kevin, who had served as executor, then moved to vacate the award in the trial court, arguing that the other brothers had engaged in misconduct that tainted the arbitration. The trial court denied his motion. Kevin appealed.

The Court's Ruling: Misconduct by a Party Is Not Enough

The Appellate Division affirmed the denial and offered a clear statement of the law. Under the New Jersey Uniform Arbitration Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23(a), a court may vacate an arbitration award only for six specific reasons. Those grounds are narrow and focused on process, not outcome — things like fraud by the arbitrator, evident partiality of the arbitrator, refusal to hear material evidence, or an arbitrator exceeding their authority.

Kevin's argument was that the defendants had committed fraud — doctoring photographs, destroying financial records, failing to pay the accounting firm. But the court pointed to the critical distinction: under New Jersey law, an arbitration award "may be vacated only for fraud, corruption, or similar wrongdoing on the part of the arbitrators." Rappaport v. Pasternak, 260 N.J. 230, 249 (2025) (quoting Chief Justice Wilentz in Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 129 N.J. 479, 548 (1992)). Alleged misconduct by the opposing party does not meet that standard.

The court also declined to consider several arguments Kevin raised for the first time on appeal — including a new claim that the defendants had doctored photographs to influence the arbitrator. Under long-standing New Jersey appellate practice, issues not raised before the trial court are generally not considered on appeal. Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973).

The Key Distinction: Voluntary Arbitration vs. a Will Clause

This case is easy to confuse with the Hekemian situation I wrote about earlier, but the two are fundamentally different. In Hekemian, a testator attempted to impose arbitration on beneficiaries through a clause written into the Will — a unilateral document that the beneficiaries never agreed to, could not negotiate, and were never asked to sign. The Appellate Division held that clause unenforceable because it lacked mutual assent and was incompatible with the Probate Code's grant of authority to the Superior Court over Will disputes.

In Dyevich, there was no Will clause at issue. All the parties — represented by counsel, fully aware of the pending litigation — sat down and agreed among themselves to submit their disputes to an arbitrator. That is a voluntary, bilateral agreement to arbitrate. It is exactly the kind of arrangement that New Jersey's arbitration statute is designed to support and enforce.

The rule, stated plainly: a testator cannot force beneficiaries into arbitration through a Will. But parties to an active estate dispute can agree — on their own terms, with full knowledge — to resolve that dispute in arbitration. Once they do, the resulting award carries the weight of a court judgment and can be vacated only in very limited circumstances.

What This Means for NJ Families Navigating Estate Disputes

Estate disputes are expensive, slow, and exhausting — especially when, as in the Dyevich family's case, multiple cases are pending at once and the litigation involves contested guardianships, financial accounts, and real property. Voluntary arbitration can be a practical path to resolution that offers privacy, speed, and finality. New Jersey courts strongly support it.

But finality cuts both ways. The same deference that makes an arbitration award powerful also makes it very difficult to undo. The New Jersey Supreme Court has described private arbitration awards as subject to "an extraordinarily deferential standard of review." Rappaport, 260 N.J. at 250. An award will not be overturned simply because a court might have decided the facts or the law differently. Courts are not in the business of second-guessing arbitrators.

If you are involved in an estate dispute and someone suggests arbitration as a way to resolve it, understand what you are agreeing to in advance. Once the arbitration is complete and the award is entered, your options to challenge it are narrow. You will not succeed by pointing to the other side's bad behavior during the proceedings — that is a matter for the arbitrator, not for the courts, after the fact.

The bottom line from Dyevich is this: arbitration works in the estate context when the parties choose it freely and with full information. What does not work — as Hekemian makes clear — is a testator trying to impose that choice on beneficiaries from beyond the grave.

Your Right to Make Bad Decisions Under New Jersey Law

Your Right to Make Bad Decisions Under New Jersey Law

by | Aug 11, 2026 | Estate Planning, Guardianship, Legal Bulletin, Living Will, NJ Supreme Court, Power of Attorney

A 2020 New Jersey Supreme Court decision, S.T. v. 1515 Broad Street, LLC, 241 N.J. 257 (2020), raises a question that matters far beyond the personal injury lawsuit at its center: how much evidence does it take before a court can take away an adult's right to control her own affairs? The answer, the Court held, is a great deal — and the procedures required to get there are not optional.

The case is also a reminder of something that even lawyers sometimes forget - - you have the right to make what may seem like an objectively bad decision. A choice that looks unwise to a lawyer or a judge is not, by itself, evidence of incapacity.

What Happened to S.T.

S.T. was a forty-four-year-old chemical engineer, a Vietnamese refugee who had served in the U.S. Army and earned advanced degrees in engineering and environmental science. In 2008, she was struck on the head by a metal plate that fell from a doorway as she exited her office building in Bloomfield. The injury was serious. The Social Security Administration declared her permanently disabled within a year. Over the following years, she was diagnosed with post-concussion syndrome, major depressive disorder, cognitive impairment, and related conditions — all found to be permanent and causally related to the accident. She made more than 500 visits to healthcare providers.

She filed a personal injury lawsuit against the building owner and others. During the litigation, the defendants made an offer of judgment for $475,000. S.T. rejected it, against the advice of her attorney, who believed the offer was in her best interest given the challenges in proving her case.

Rather than accept her decision, S.T.'s own attorney filed a motion to have a guardian ad litem appointed to determine whether she had the mental capacity to make litigation decisions. He did not copy S.T. on the motion. The court appointed one without giving S.T. notice or a hearing. The guardian ad litem investigated, concluded S.T. lacked the capacity to decide whether to settle or go to trial, and was then granted the authority by the court to make that decision for her. A $625,000 settlement was reached — without S.T.'s consent. She appeared at the final hearing and objected forcefully, comparing the forced settlement to a life sentence. The court approved it anyway.

The Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed.

Guardian Ad Litem vs. Legal Guardian: A Critical Distinction

The trial court's core mistake was treating the role of a legal guardian and guardian ad litem as interchangeable. They are not, and the difference is legally significant.

A legal guardian is appointed only after a court has formally adjudicated that a person is incapacitated — meaning impaired by mental illness or intellectual disability to the extent that the person "lacks sufficient capacity to govern himself and manage his affairs." N.J.S.A. 3B:1-2. That process requires a formal complaint, sworn affidavits from qualified medical professionals, at least twenty days' notice to the person, the right to independent counsel, and a hearing at which incapacity must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Only then may a court appoint a guardian with the legal authority to make decisions on someone else's behalf. For more on how that process works, see Understanding Guardianship in New Jersey and What Happens After You're Appointed Guardian.

A guardian ad litem serves a fundamentally different and more limited function. When a person is alleged — not adjudicated — to be mentally incapacitated, a court may appoint a guardian ad litem to investigate the question and report back. The guardian ad litem acts, as the Court put it, as "the eyes of the court" — an independent investigator, not a decision-maker. The guardian ad litem's recommendations are not binding on the court, and the court cannot delegate its own fact-finding function to the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem's job is to advise the court whether a formal guardianship hearing under Rule 4:86 should proceed — not to replace the person's judgment in the meantime.

In S.T.'s case, the court skipped the adjudication entirely. It appointed a guardian ad litem, then immediately handed that person the authority to settle S.T.'s lawsuit over her objection — without ever holding the guardianship hearing that New Jersey law requires. The Supreme Court described this as the trial court "abdicating the Judiciary's nondelegable oversight and factfinding function" and "outsourcing to the guardian ad litem the role of final arbiter of S.T.'s capacity."

The Right to Make a Poor Decision

One of the most important principles running through the Supreme Court's opinion is the one the lower courts failed to apply: making a decision that others consider unwise is not, by itself, determinative of incapacity.

New Jersey law recognizes a clear public policy favoring the right of self-determination for all people. Competent people, the Court noted, "ordinarily can choose what they want, even when their choices are unwise or contrary to their best interests." The Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to abide by their client's decisions about the scope and objectives of representation — including the decision whether to settle a lawsuit. RPC 1.2(a). A lawsuit is a property right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that right cannot be taken away without following the procedural safeguards the law demands.

The trial court judge told S.T. at the settlement hearing that she was "a very intelligent woman" but that "sometimes a little knowledge is dangerous" and that the mere fact that she wanted to reject a $625,000 offer was "troubling." The Supreme Court saw that reasoning for what it was: substituting the court's and counsel's judgment for the client's, without the legal authority to do so. As the Court observed, had S.T. not rejected the original $475,000 offer — the very rejection her attorney cited as evidence of her diminished capacity — an additional $150,000 would never have been placed on the table.

This same tension between protection and autonomy runs through all of New Jersey's guardianship law. Even in a formal guardianship proceeding, the Court has held that a family member cannot be bypassed without a plenary hearing and proper due process — and that the incapacitated person's own prior expressed wishes must be considered. See New Jersey Appellate Court Clarifies Judge’s Role in Guardianship Cases.

When Diminished Capacity Does Not Mean Incapacity

The Court did not rule that S.T. was definitely competent, or that her attorney was wrong to have concerns. It ruled that those concerns, however sincere, had to be tested through a proper legal process before they could justify overriding S.T.'s decisions. Diminished capacity — the standard her attorney described — is not the same as legal incapacity under New Jersey law. A person can process information slowly, struggle with complex tasks, or even make choices others consider irrational, and still retain the legal right to govern her own affairs.

The distinction matters in a range of contexts beyond personal injury litigation. A person without a formal guardian has the right to make their own financial decisions, their own medical decisions, and their own legal decisions — even ones that others in their life consider harmful. Until a court makes a formal finding of incapacity through the process New Jersey law requires, that person's autonomy is legally protected.

The lesson of S.T. is straightforward. Good intentions — whether those of an attorney, a family member, or a court — do not substitute for due process. The procedures New Jersey law requires before a person can be deprived of the right to manage her own affairs exist for a reason. They are not bureaucratic formalities. They are the line between protection and the loss of liberty.

NJ Medicaid Fair Hearing Process Changes in Effect July 1, 2026

by | Aug 4, 2026 | Legal Bulletin, Medicaid, Medicaid Updates

The New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services issued Medicaid Communication No. 26-06 on June 23, 2026. The communication announces significant operational changes to the NJ FamilyCare Medicaid fair hearing process, effective July 1, 2026. These changes end a series of temporary procedural flexibilities that DMAHS put in place during the COVID-19 public health emergency unwinding period, which concluded December 31, 2025. Beneficiaries, advocates, and practitioners who handle Medicaid appeals should review these changes carefully.

The three key changes are:

  • End of automatic continuation of benefits pending appeal. During the unwinding period, benefits were automatically reinstated and continued for all members who filed a fair hearing request after a termination or reduction. That automatic reinstatement ends July 1, 2026. Going forward, members must affirmatively elect to continue benefits while their appeal is pending. If a member does not make that election, benefits will be paused. Members who elect continuation of benefits and ultimately lose their appeal may have the cost of services recouped by DMAHS under N.J.A.C. § 10:49-10.4(b) — but DMAHS has stated it will not seek recoupment for services delivered beyond the 90-day regulatory deadline for final administrative action, except in cases involving fraud or abuse of the hearing process.

  • Return to the 20-day fair hearing filing deadline. During the unwinding period, DMAHS temporarily extended the filing period to 60 days. That extension ends July 1, 2026, and the standard 20-day deadline under N.J.A.C. § 10:49-10.3(b) resumes. However, DMAHS is building in 10 days of mailing presumption time — five days for standard mail processing and five days to account for the USPS postmark rule change effective December 24, 2025 — meaning fair hearing notices will state that members have 30 days from the date on the notice to file. The request must be made within that 30-day window, with proof of mailing or faxing.

  • Resumption of DMAHS review of OAL Initial Decisions. Under standard procedure, OAL Administrative Law Judges conduct hearings and issue Initial Decisions, which DMAHS then reviews before issuing a Final Agency Decision. During the unwinding period, certain Initial Decisions in income, resource, and failure-to-provide-information cases were automatically adopted as Final Agency Decisions without DMAHS review. That shortcut ends July 1, 2026. DMAHS will now review Initial Decisions in all cases, though it expects to use a streamlined process for most routine cases, issuing a brief Final Agency Decision adopting the Initial Decision. Deeper review is reserved for cases involving material error, novel legal issues, or timely filed exceptions raising unusual circumstances.

The most consequential change for beneficiaries is the end of automatic aid continuation. Under the prior temporary process, filing a fair hearing request was sufficient to keep benefits running while the appeal was pending. That is no longer the case. Starting July 1, members who receive a termination or reduction notice must take an affirmative step to elect continuation of benefits — and the fair hearing notice itself will need to clearly communicate that option. Advocates should prepare clients to act on this immediately upon receipt of any adverse notice, and should ensure they understand the recoupment risk if the appeal is unsuccessful within the 90-day window.

The full communication, including a fact sheet with computation examples, is available here.