by Jose D. Roman | Oct 20, 2026 | Estate Planning, Last Will and Testament, Living Will, Power of Attorney, Trusts, Uncategorized
If you have attended a free dinner seminar on estate planning, you have heard the pitch. Probate is a nightmare, the government is coming for your house, and the only thing standing between your family and financial ruin is a revocable living trust — available tonight at a special seminar price.
Here is the honest answer I give my clients: a revocable living trust is a genuinely useful tool, but in New Jersey it is oversold. Whether you need one depends entirely on your situation, and most of what the seminars claim is either exaggerated or flatly wrong.
What a Revocable Living Trust Actually Is
A revocable living trust is a legal arrangement you create during your lifetime. You transfer your assets — house, bank accounts, investments — into the trust and name yourself trustee. You keep complete control: you can spend the money, sell the property, change the terms, or revoke the whole thing whenever you want. Under N.J.S.A. 3B:31-43(a), a New Jersey trust is revocable unless its terms expressly say otherwise.
When you die, your chosen successor trustee steps in and distributes everything per your instructions, with no court proceeding for the assets actually in the trust. For income tax purposes, the IRS pretends the trust does not exist while you are alive — a revocable trust is a grantor trust, so all income is taxed to you exactly as if you still held everything in your own name.
Does a Revocable Trust Save You Meaningful Probate Costs in New Jersey?
The number one selling point is probate avoidance. In some states that warning has real teeth. In New Jersey, it mostly does not. I have written in detail about what probate actually looks like here: for a typical uncontested estate, it is an administrative process through the county Surrogate's Court, with typical government filing fees and costs, and no courtroom appearance required. Attorney fees are not set by a statutory percentage the way they are in California or Florida.
So when a trust is marketed to you mainly as New Jersey probate avoidance, ask what problem is actually being solved — for many families, that probate was never going to be expensive. Avoiding probate may have some value, but it is one benefit among several, and it should not be the whole sales pitch.
Does a Revocable Trust Save You Taxes?
This is where the seminar pitch falls apart for New Jersey residents. A revocable living trust does not reduce your taxes — not federal, not state.
New Jersey repealed its estate tax for individuals who died on or after January 1, 2018. There is nothing left for a trust to avoid. The New Jersey inheritance tax, on the other hand, is very much alive — and a revocable trust does nothing to escape it. Because you keep the power to revoke, the state treats the trust property as a transfer taking effect at your death, taxable under N.J.S.A. 54:34-1(c). The tax depends on who receives the assets, not on whether they passed through probate or a trust. Transfers to a spouse, children, parents, and other Class A beneficiaries are exempt either way; transfers to more distant relatives are taxed either way. The trust changes the mechanics, not the tax bill.
Does a Revocable Trust Protect Your Assets?
Because you can revoke the trust and take everything back at any time, your creditors can reach the assets too — a court can simply order you to revoke it. If creditor protection is your goal, a revocable trust provides none.
The same logic applies to Medicaid, and this is the version I see most often. New Jersey's Medicaid rules are explicit: for a revocable trust, the entire corpus counts as a resource available to you (N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.11(e)1.i). Every dollar in the trust counts toward the $2,000 resource limit. Putting your house into a revocable living trust does absolutely nothing for Medicaid eligibility. If sheltering assets from long-term care costs is the objective, that requires an irrevocable trust under completely different rules, including the five-year lookback.
What It Actually Does Well
With the myths cleared away, here is what the trust genuinely offers. First, privacy: probate is a public process and your will becomes a public record, while a trust is administered privately by your successor trustee. Second, out-of-state property: a Florida vacation home or Pennsylvania condo held in the trust avoids a separate probate proceeding in each of those states.
Third, incapacity planning. Your successor trustee can step in and manage trust assets without court involvement — but only for assets actually in the trust. Property left outside it may still require a guardianship proceeding, and a court-appointed guardian can, with court approval, exercise your powers over the trust itself. A trust is a strong incapacity tool, but it does not replace a durable power of attorney or healthcare documents. As noted above, it also does not help an incapacitated person qualify for long-term care Medicaid.
Fourth, control over distributions. You can keep a minor child's inheritance in trust until an age you choose, and in a blended family you can provide for a surviving spouse for life while preserving the remainder for your children. One caution: if a beneficiary has a disability and receives means-tested benefits, a standard revocable trust can disqualify them — that situation calls for a special needs trust, a different instrument.
The Step Everyone Skips: Funding the Trust
The failure I see more than any other: someone pays several thousand dollars for a beautiful trust document, takes it home, puts it in a drawer, and never funds it. A trust only controls the assets you actually transfer into it — the house needs a new deed, the accounts need retitling, and each transfer takes paperwork.
An unfunded trust is an expensive stack of paper. Assets left outside it go through probate exactly as if the trust did not exist, which means the client paid for probate avoidance and got probate anyway. If you create a trust, fund it promptly and completely, and review it whenever you acquire significant new assets. Treat funding as part of the engagement, not homework for later.
When I Tell Clients Yes — and When I Tell Them No
I recommend a revocable living trust without hesitation for clients who own real estate in another state, have strong privacy concerns, want incapacity planning beyond a power of attorney, have minor children with significant assets, or are navigating a blended family.
I talk clients out of one just as often. If your estate is straightforward — a New Jersey home, bank and investment accounts, everything going to your spouse and then your children — a well-drafted will, current beneficiary designations, and payable-on-death designations accomplish essentially everything a trust would, at a fraction of the cost. A properly drafted and funded trust typically runs several thousand dollars. Spending that to solve a problem you do not have is not planning.
The Bottom Line
A revocable living trust is a tool, not a magic wand that solves all potential problems. It does not cut your taxes, does not protect assets from creditors or Medicaid, and in New Jersey it does not buy the dramatic probate savings the seminars may advertise. What it does buy — privacy, control over distributions, incapacity planning, and multi-state simplicity — is genuinely valuable for the right family. The right question was never "should I get a living trust." It is "what problem am I trying to solve." If the answers involve privacy, out-of-state property, minor children, a blended/second family, or incapacity, a trust may be exactly right. If they involve taxes, asset protection, or fear of New Jersey probate, you are being sold a solution to a problem you do not have — and the documents you actually need are a current will, a durable power of attorney, a healthcare proxy, and a living will. Before you sign anything at a seminar, talk to an attorney who asks about your family first and reaches for a product second.
by Jose D. Roman | Sep 29, 2026 | Estate Administration, Estate Planning, Intestate Estate (No Will), Last Will and Testament, Probate
What Happens to a Timeshare When You Die?
Many people buy a timeshare thinking it will provide years of family vacations while accumulating an asset. What often gets overlooked is what happens to that timeshare after the owner's death. Unlike many assets, a timeshare can continue generating annual maintenance fees, special assessments, taxes, and other obligations long after the owner is gone.
If you own a timeshare, or if a loved one recently passed away owning one, understanding how New Jersey estate law treats these interests can help avoid unpleasant surprises.
Is a Timeshare Part of Your Estate?
A timeshare is generally considered property owned by the deceased person. If the timeshare is titled solely in the owner's name and does not pass automatically to a joint owner or trust, it will typically become part of the probate estate and be administered by the executor. Whether the timeshare is a deeded real estate interest or a contractual right-to-use arrangement, it is generally treated as an asset of the estate. For a deeded interest, ancillary probate in the state where the resort is located may be required. This can increase the cost and complexity of estate administration. For a right-to-use contract, no real property is transferred and ancillary probate is generally not required, but the contractual obligations may still bind the estate.
Are Your Heirs Required to Take the Timeshare?
One of the most common myths about timeshares is that children automatically become personally responsible for them after a parent's death.
Under New Jersey law, beneficiaries generally have the right to disclaim an inheritance. A valid disclaimer allows a beneficiary to refuse property passing to them through a will, trust, or intestacy. If an heir properly disclaims the timeshare, the law treats that person as though they predeceased the decedent for purposes of that inheritance. The property then passes to the next eligible beneficiary. It is important to note that the next beneficiary in line must also file a disclaimer if they too do not want the timeshare.
However, heirs should be careful. Taking ownership, using the timeshare, or otherwise accepting benefits before seeking a disclaimer may limit their ability to refuse the interest later. In addition, a disclaimer must be made within nine months of the transfer (generally, the date of death) or within nine months after the disclaimant turns 21.
Is the Estate Responsible for Ongoing Timeshare Fees?
Although heirs may decline the inheritance, the estate still owns the timeshare during the estate administration process. As a result, maintenance fees, assessments, taxes, mortgage payments, and other contractual obligations may continue to accrue.
Like other creditor claims, these obligations may need to be addressed before distributions are made to beneficiaries. In many cases, an executor will evaluate whether the timeshare has any market value. Unfortunately, many timeshares have little or no resale value while continuing to generate annual expenses.
If the estate has sufficient assets, creditors may seek payment through the estate administration process. New Jersey law generally provides that debts are paid from estate assets before distributions to heirs. If the estate is insolvent or the timeshare is the only asset, creditors may simply be unable to collect. Keep this in mind because timeshare companies sometimes pursue aggressive collection tactics against estates and even against heirs personally.
What Should an Executor Do With a Timeshare?
Each situation is different, but a good first step is obtaining the timeshare documents. The executor should determine:
- Whether the interest is deeded real estate or a contractual membership.
- Whether a loan or mortgage remains outstanding.
- The amount of annual maintenance fees and assessments.
- Whether the timeshare company offers a surrender or deed-back program.
- Whether the interest has any realistic resale value.
In some cases, surrendering the timeshare to the resort may be the most economical solution. In others, a sale or transfer may be possible. Ignoring the issue rarely makes it disappear.
How Should a Timeshare Be Addressed in an Estate Plan?
If you own a timeshare consider selling or surrendering it before you pass away. Otherwise, your estate plan should specifically account for it. Far too often, people leave timeshares to heirs who have no interest in owning them. This can create unnecessary administrative costs, family conflict, and ongoing financial obligations.
A comprehensive estate plan should identify all real estate interests, including vacation properties and timeshares, and consider whether ownership should be transferred during life, placed into a trust, sold, surrendered, or specifically addressed in a will.
Just as important, your family should know the timeshare exists. Many executors discover a timeshare only after maintenance fee invoices begin arriving months after death. If you have not reviewed your estate plan recently, this is a good reminder to make sure assets such as timeshares, vacation properties, and other real estate are properly accounted for.
You may also find my articles on probate, inheriting a home, and a last will and testament helpful when evaluating how a timeshare fits into your overall estate plan.
The Bottom Line
A timeshare does not disappear when its owner dies.
In most cases, it becomes part of the estate, may need to pass through probate, and can continue generating expenses until it is transferred, sold, surrendered, or otherwise resolved. While heirs generally cannot be forced to accept an unwanted timeshare, the estate may still have to address the financial obligations associated with it.
Because timeshares often create unique challenges during estate administration, they should be specifically addressed as part of every New Jersey estate plan.
by Jose D. Roman | Sep 15, 2026 | Estate Planning, Guardianship, Living Will, Power of Attorney
Many people believe that if a loved one has moments of clarity after being declared incapacitated, they can simply sign a new advance directive, health care proxy, or other planning document. New Jersey law is more complicated.
The case In re Roche, 296 N.J. Super. 583 (Ch. Div. 1996), addresses an important question: Can a person who has already been adjudicated incapacitated and placed under guardianship execute a valid advance directive? The court's answer was no. However, the court also recognized that the person's wishes still matter and may continue to influence future medical decisions.
For New Jersey families, the decision highlights the importance of completing estate planning and incapacity planning documents before a guardianship proceeding becomes necessary.
The Facts of In re Roche
Clementine Roche had been adjudicated incapacitated in 1993 due to dementia, and the Public Guardian for Elderly Adults was appointed as her guardian. While residing in a nursing home, Ms. Roche discussed her medical wishes with representatives of the Public Guardian's Office. She indicated that she did not want CPR or artificial nutrition and hydration through feeding tubes under any circumstances.
In 1995, she signed what purported to be an advance directive reflecting those wishes. Medical professionals and guardian representatives believed she understood the nature and consequences of the document at the time she signed it. The guardian then asked the court to determine whether the advance directive was valid and binding. If not, the guardian sought guidance on what weight should be given to the document in future medical decision-making.
The Court's Holding
The court held that a person who has already been adjudicated incapacitated cannot execute a valid advance directive under New Jersey's Advance Directives for Health Care Act. The statute permits a competent adult to execute an advance directive, and the court concluded that the Legislature intended advance directives to be created before a loss of decision-making capacity occurs.
As the court explained, once a person has been adjudicated incapacitated and remains subject to a guardianship, it is too late to create a legally enforceable advance directive under the statute.
At the same time, the court rejected the idea that the document should simply be ignored. Even though the advance directive was not legally valid, it could still be considered evidence of Ms. Roche's wishes and subjective intent when her guardian later faced medical decisions on her behalf.
The Right of Self-Determination Does Not Disappear
One of the most important aspects of Roche is its recognition that incapacitated persons retain a right of self-determination.
Building on earlier New Jersey cases such as In re Conroy and In re M.R., the court emphasized that incapacitated individuals have the same fundamental right to bodily integrity and medical self-determination as competent persons. The difference is that once a person lacks legal capacity, those rights must be exercised through substitute decision-makers and balanced against the individual's best interests.
In other words, guardians do not supplant the person's wishes. Rather, guardians are expected, whenever possible, to determine what the incapacitated person would have chosen if competent and make decisions using a substituted-judgment analysis. Evidence of those wishes can come from conversations, religious beliefs, prior conduct, powers of attorney, living wills, and similar expressions of intent.
For a broader discussion of medical decision-making rights in New Jersey, see my article on the right to refuse medical treatment in New Jersey.
The Practical Impact on Powers of Attorney and Other Planning Documents
Although Roche specifically involved an advance directive, the decision illustrates a broader practical concern. Once a court has adjudicated a person incapacitated and appointed a guardian, the individual's ability to execute new legal documents becomes significantly more complicated.
Whether a will, power of attorney, trust amendment, deed, or other document may be validly executed depends on the nature and scope of the guardianship order, the person's remaining capacity, and, in some situations, court involvement. Although Roche addressed an advance directive rather than a power of attorney, the case demonstrates how a judicial declaration of incapacity can significantly affect an individual's ability to engage in future legal planning.
This is one reason why proactive planning is so critical. Advance directives and powers of attorney are generally most effective when executed before cognitive decline leads to guardianship litigation.
Why Roche Still Matters Today
Nearly three decades after it was decided, In re Roche remains a useful reminder that incapacity planning works best when completed early.
The case reinforces two important principles. First, New Jersey's advance directive statute is designed for competent adults planning ahead for a future loss of capacity. Second, even after a guardianship is established, an incapacitated person's expressed wishes remain relevant and should be considered when guardians make health care decisions.
Families facing capacity concerns should therefore act promptly. Waiting until after a guardianship has been established may eliminate the ability to create certain legally enforceable planning documents, even when the individual appears capable of expressing thoughtful preferences.
If you are dealing with questions concerning incapacity, guardianship, or medical decision-making, you may also find my article on guardians ad litem and mental capacity in New Jersey helpful.
by Jose D. Roman | Sep 8, 2026 | Estate Planning, Guardianship, Living Will, Power of Attorney
New Jersey has long been a national leader in recognizing a person's right to decide what medical treatment they do and do not want. That right includes the ability to refuse life-sustaining treatment, even when refusing treatment may result in death. Although these cases often arise in heartbreaking circumstances, the legal principle is straightforward: medical treatment generally requires the patient's consent.
The right to refuse treatment is rooted in both personal autonomy and constitutional principles. New Jersey courts have recognized that competent adults have a fundamental right to make decisions about their own medical care, including the decision to decline treatment. The New Jersey Legislature later incorporated those principles into the New Jersey Advance Directives for Health Care Act, which expressly recognizes an individual's right to accept, reject, or discontinue medical treatment and to appoint another person to make decisions when the individual can no longer do so.
The Constitutional Basis for the Right to Refuse Treatment
New Jersey's modern law on refusing life-sustaining treatment began with the 1976 case of In re Quinlan. In that case, twenty-one-year-old Karen Ann Quinlan suffered severe brain damage and entered a persistent vegetative state. Her father sought authority to remove her from a ventilator after physicians concluded there was no realistic hope of recovery. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that an individual's constitutional right of privacy included the right to decline extraordinary life-sustaining treatment and that a guardian could assert that right for an incompetent patient under appropriate circumstances.
The United States Supreme Court later reached a similar conclusion in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. Nancy Cruzan was left in a persistent vegetative state following an automobile accident. The Court recognized that competent individuals have a constitutionally protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause to refuse unwanted medical treatment. However, the Court also held that states may require reliable evidence of an incompetent patient's wishes before life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn. The decision helped spur the widespread use of living wills and health care powers of attorney across the country.
Conroy: Extending the Right Beyond Ventilators
In 1985 the New Jersey Supreme Court significantly expanded these principles in In re Conroy. Claire Conroy was an elderly nursing home resident suffering from severe, irreversible physical and cognitive impairments. The dispute involved whether artificial nutrition and hydration delivered through a feeding tube could be withdrawn.
The Court held that artificially provided nutrition and hydration constitute medical treatment and may be withdrawn under appropriate circumstances. More importantly, the Court established several decision-making standards for incompetent patients who had not left clear instructions. These standards focused on determining what the patient would have wanted and, in some circumstances, whether the burdens of treatment so outweighed its benefits that continuing treatment would be inappropriate even without clear evidence of the patient's wishes.
Today, Conroy remains one of New Jersey's most important end-of-life cases because it emphasized that the goal is not what family members, judges, or physicians want, but what the patient would have chosen.
Jobes: The Importance of Family and Substituted Judgment
In Matter of Jobes, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the case of a young woman who had remained in a persistent vegetative state for years following surgical complications. Her husband and family sought withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration.
The Court reaffirmed that the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment extends to incompetent patients. It also emphasized the role of close family members in applying a substituted judgment analysis, meaning an effort to determine what the patient would have chosen if able to decide. The Court ultimately allowed withdrawal of the feeding tube based upon evidence concerning the patient's values and wishes. Together, Quinlan, Conroy, and Jobes firmly established New Jersey's recognition of patient autonomy, even after a person loses decision-making capacity.
The Difference Between a Guardian and a Health Care Agent
Many people assume that a family member automatically gains authority to make medical decisions. That is not always true.
A person may designate a health care representative through an advance directive or medical power of attorney. Once the individual loses capacity, the representative gains legal authority to make health care decisions, including decisions about life-sustaining treatment, subject to the terms of the directive and the patient's known wishes. New Jersey law directs the representative to follow the patient's instructions whenever known.
A guardian, by contrast, receives authority from a court. Guardianship becomes necessary when a person has lost capacity and did not execute valid planning documents. If you would like to learn more about guardianship proceedings, see my articles on New Jersey guardianship, contested guardianship hearings, and who makes medical decisions in New Jersey.
Even a guardian's authority is not unlimited. A guardian is not free to substitute the guardian's personal beliefs for the ward's wishes. Instead, the guardian must attempt to make the decision the ward would have made based on the ward's values, statements, religious beliefs, and prior directives. The courts repeatedly emphasize that the patient's autonomy remains the central concern.
Must a Guardian or Agent Follow an Advance Directive?
Generally, yes.
Under New Jersey law, an advance directive is designed to preserve the patient's voice after incapacity occurs. A health care representative is expected to make decisions in accordance with the patient's instructions and known wishes. Only when the patient's preferences are unknown should the representative turn to a best-interests analysis.
Likewise, a guardian ordinarily must honor a valid advance directive. A court-appointed guardian does not gain the authority to rewrite the ward's prior decisions. The advance directive remains powerful evidence of the patient's wishes and usually controls medical decision-making.
There is one important qualification. New Jersey law provides that if an incapacitated patient clearly expresses a contemporaneous desire to receive life-sustaining treatment, that expressed wish can take precedence over an earlier contrary instruction in an advance directive.
Why Advance Directives Matter
The lesson from Quinlan, Conroy, Jobes, and Cruzan is that New Jersey law places tremendous importance on an individual's own choices. When a person's wishes are clearly documented, courts, physicians, guardians, and family members are far more likely to reach decisions consistent with those wishes.
An advance directive allows you to state what treatments you would accept or refuse and designate a trusted person to speak on your behalf. Without those documents, loved ones may face uncertainty, family disputes, guardianship proceedings, or court involvement at a time that is already emotionally difficult.
New Jersey law recognizes that the decision to undergo or refuse medical treatment belongs first and foremost to the individual. The best way to ensure your voice is heard is to make your wishes known before a crisis occurs.
by Jose D. Roman | 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.
by Jose D. Roman | 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.