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by the New Jersey Supreme Court, Christakos v. Boyadjis, 262 N.J. 447 (2026), highlights how misunderstandings, outdated estate plans, and last-minute revisions can lead to years of probate litigation and significant expense.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.
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.
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.
A New Jersey appellate decision decided June 29, 2026 — In the Matter of the Estate of Agnieshka Burke — offers a stark illustration of what can happen when someone dies while a divorce is still pending. The case involves a $500,000 life insurance policy, a Will that named the estranged husband as executor and sole beneficiary, and a fight between that husband and the decedent's sister over who gets what. The court's ruling touches on three issues that matter to anyone who is separated, going through a divorce, or simply has not updated their estate plan in years: whether your Will still works the way you intended, who controls your estate when you die, and what happens to assets like life insurance that pass outside your Will entirely.
Dying With a Divorce Pending
Under New Jersey law, a divorce action ordinarily ends when a final judgment of divorce is entered. If one spouse dies before that happens, the divorce proceedings have traditionally abated — meaning they simply stop. The surviving spouse inherits under the Will or under the intestacy laws if there is no Will, and the court's power to divide marital property (called equitable distribution) disappears.
The Legislature changed this rule in January 2024 by adding subsection (h)(2) to the equitable distribution statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. The new provision states that if a divorce complaint has been filed and either party dies before a final judgment is entered, the court's authority to divide marital property does not abate. In Burke, the Appellate Division confirmed that this right belongs not just to a surviving spouse, but also to the estate of the spouse who died. In plain terms, if you file for divorce and then die before it is finished, your estate (acting through a personal representative) may still be able to pursue a share of the marital assets.
This is a significant development for anyone with a pending divorce. It means that death during divorce proceedings does not necessarily resolve the property dispute. It may simply transfer the fight to a different courtroom.
Your Executor May Have a Conflict of Interest
In Burke, Agnieshka had named her husband Jared as executor of her Will. After she died with the divorce still pending, Jared was appointed executor and also stood as the primary beneficiary under both her Will and life insurance policy. The court found this created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. As the Appellate Division put it, Jared's responsibilities to represent the estate's interests and his own personal interests were "directly adverse."
The court did not remove Jared as executor entirely, but it disqualified him from acting as executor in connection with the equitable distribution dispute — the exact proceeding where the estate's most valuable rights were at stake. It then ordered the Probate Part to appoint a substitute executor for that limited purpose, and noted that Agnieshka's Will had already named her sister as successor executor.
The lesson here is direct. If you are separated or in the middle of a divorce, your spouse is most likely still named in your Will as executor, beneficiary, or both. Unless your Will is updated or the divorce is finalized, that person retains legal authority over your estate when you die. New Jersey law does automatically revoke certain transfers to a former spouse after a divorce is complete under N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14, but that protection does not kick in until the divorce is actually finalized. Separation alone changes nothing.
Non-Probate Assets Are a Separate Problem
Most people assume their Will controls everything they own. It does not. Assets that pass by beneficiary designation — life insurance, retirement accounts, payable-on-death bank accounts — transfer directly to the named beneficiary regardless of what the Will says. These are called non-probate assets, and they pass outside of probate entirely.
In Burke, Agnieshka's $500,000 life insurance policy named Jared as the sole beneficiary. The couple was separated and a divorce was pending, but she had not changed the designation. The Appellate Division sent the question of who is entitled to those proceeds to the Family court for resolution, but it was careful to note that Jared remains the named beneficiary and that no settlement agreement or final divorce judgment existed that would automatically revoke that designation under N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14.
This is where many people are caught off guard. You can update your Will, but if you forget to change the beneficiary on your life insurance policy or your 401(k), those assets still pass directly to your estranged spouse. The only way to ensure your beneficiary designations reflect your current intentions is to change them directly with the insurance company, bank, or plan administrator — a Will cannot override them.
What You Should Do Now
If you are separated or going through a divorce, your estate plan needs immediate attention on several fronts. First, after consulting your divorce attorney, review and update your Will to name a new executor and new beneficiaries. Second, also after consulting your divorce attorney, change beneficiary designations on every account that carries one — life insurance, IRAs, 401(k)s, annuities, payable-on-death accounts. Third, review any powers of attorney and health care proxies that name your spouse as your agent. In New Jersey, the divorce statute does not automatically revoke a health care proxy naming a spouse, so your estranged husband or wife may still have the legal authority to make medical decisions for you if you become incapacitated. For more on how that works, see who makes medical decisions in New Jersey.
There are also Medicaid planning considerations that arise when a couple separates but does not yet divorce — particularly for couples where one spouse may need long-term care. Medicaid's spousal protection rules treat legally married couples as a unit for purposes of resource assessment, which can affect eligibility and planning options. For more on that issue, see Medicaid and divorce in New Jersey.
The Burke case is a reminder that separation is not a legal status that protects you or your estate. Until a divorce is final, your spouse remains your legal spouse for virtually every purpose that matters in estate planning. If your circumstances have changed, your documents need to change with them.
Can a testator include an arbitration clause in their Will that forces beneficiaries to resolve disputes in a private arbitration forum rather than a New Jersey court? For the first time, the New Jersey Appellate Division has answered that question directly — and the answer is no.
In a case published on April 21, 2026, In re Estate of Samuel P. Hekemian, the Appellate Division held that an arbitration provision contained in a Last Will and Testament is unenforceable under New Jersey law.
Background: The Hekemian Family Estate
Samuel P. Hekemian died testate in August 2018, survived by his wife Sandra and their four adult sons: Peter, Jeffrey, Mark, and Richard. His 2002 Last Will and Testament (2002 LWT) appointed his son Peter and longtime advisor Edward G. Imperatore, Esq. as co-executors and co-trustees of three testamentary trusts established under the Will.
The 2002 LWT contained an arbitration clause providing that any dispute regarding the interpretation of the Will or its administration “shall be submitted for settlement by arbitration.” The clause declared arbitration to be “the exclusive remedy” for resolving such disputes and stated that the arbitrator’s decision “shall be final and binding upon all interested parties and shall not be appealable to any court of law.”
The same arbitration provision appeared in reciprocal Wills executed simultaneously in 2001 by Samuel and Sandra that were prepared by the same New York attorney. When Sandra and Richard later filed exceptions to the co-executors’ first intermediate accounting of the estate, the co-executors moved to compel arbitration.
A Second Look at the Same Arbitration Clause
This was not the first time the arbitration provision had been challenged. In an earlier unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division had affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of Richard’s request for an accounting, finding that the clause was not the product of mutual assent under traditional contract principles and that it failed to explain that Richard was relinquishing his right to bring a claim in court. At that time, however, the court stopped short of declaring the arbitration provision categorically unenforceable.
In the intervening period, Sandra joined the litigation and filed her own exceptions to the co-executors’ accounting. Unlike Richard, Sandra had received distributions under the 2002 LWT. The co-executors argued this distinguished her situation and that her participation in the Will’s benefits, combined with the execution of the reciprocal 2001 Wills, established the mutual assent necessary to compel her to arbitrate. The trial court rejected that argument and denied the motion. The co-executors appealed.
The Court’s Holding: Two Independent Grounds
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s denial, but went further than the lower court by issuing a definitive ruling on a question of first impression: arbitration clauses in testamentary instruments are unenforceable under New Jersey law. The court rested its holding on two independent and mutually reinforcing grounds.
1. Lack of Mutual Assent
An agreement to arbitrate, like any contract, requires mutual assent — a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to pursue claims in court. The court reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that the arbitration clause failed to explain, in clear and unambiguous terms, that interested parties were relinquishing their right to sue. Citing Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014), the court emphasized that “the point is to assure that the parties know that in electing arbitration as the exclusive remedy, they are waiving their time-honored right to sue.”
The co-executors argued that Sandra’s simultaneous execution of a reciprocal Will containing the same arbitration clause demonstrated her assent. The court rejected this. While a meeting of the minds is not required for a Will to be effective — because a Will is a unilateral disposition of property, not a contract — that principle cuts in the opposite direction for arbitration purposes. Precisely because a Will is unilateral, neither Sandra nor any other interested party was afforded the opportunity to consider or elect to waive their right to proceed in court. The court was not satisfied that the simultaneous execution of reciprocal Wills, without more, established the kind of informed, knowing assent required for a valid arbitration agreement.
2. Inconsistency with the Probate Code
Even if the assent problem could be overcome, the court held that arbitration clauses in Wills are incompatible with New Jersey’s statutory framework for estate administration. The Probate Code, N.J.S.A. 3B:1-1 et seq., vests the Superior Court with comprehensive authority over Will disputes, trust administration, and fiduciary accountings. The court catalogued the relevant provisions, including but not limited to:
N.J.S.A. 3B:2-2 grants the Superior Court "full authority to hear and determine all controversies respecting wills, trusts[,] and estates, and full authority over the accounts of fiduciaries, and also authority over all other matters and things as are submitted to its determination under this title."
N.J.S.A. 3B:3-17 during probate, the Superior Court "may take depositions to wills[,] admit the same to probate, and grant . . . letters testamentary or letters of administration with the will annexed."
N.J.S.A. 3B:3-18 requiring that to "prove the transfer of any property or to nominate an executor, a will must be admitted to probate."
Against this backdrop, the court reaffirmed and expressly adopted what had been an observation in its prior unpublished opinion: “arbitration clauses that eliminate the courts’ expected role in resolving Will disputes are inconsistent with the detailed statutory scheme vesting the superior courts with the authority to adjudicate such issues.” Accordingly, enforcement of an arbitration clause in a testamentary instrument is contrary to both the Probate Code and New Jersey’s contract principles. The court held:
We conclude enforcement of an arbitration clause in a testamentary instrument is contrary to the court’s role underlying the Probate Code and inconsistent with our State’s contract principles.
What This Means for Estate Planning in New Jersey
The Hekemian decision settles a question that had been lingering in New Jersey estate practice for years. Estate planners and their clients should take note of several practical implications.
Arbitration clauses in Wills are unenforceable in New Jersey. Regardless of a testator’s intent, an arbitration provision in a Last Will and Testament cannot compel beneficiaries, heirs, or other interested parties to resolve their disputes outside of court. Any such provision should be considered a nullity.
Testamentary trusts are also covered. The court’s holding extends to disputes concerning trusts created under a Will, not merely the Will itself. The arbitration clause in the Will purported to cover disputes “regarding the interpretation of this Will and the trusts created hereunder” — both were held unenforceable.
The result is the same regardless of mutual assent. Even if a testator and their spouse executed reciprocal Wills containing identical arbitration clauses, and even if the surviving spouse received benefits under the Will, that is insufficient to establish the knowing, voluntary waiver of court rights required under Atalese.
Inter vivos trusts are a different question. The Hekemian decision addresses testamentary instruments — Wills and trusts created by Wills. Arbitration clauses in standalone inter vivos trusts, which are contractual instruments, may be treated differently.
Will disputes belong in court. Beneficiaries and interested parties who find themselves in estate disputes in New Jersey have a right to litigate those disputes in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Probate Part — and a testator cannot take that right away through a provision buried in their Will.
A Practical Note for Families
For families navigating an estate dispute in New Jersey, the Hekemian decision is significant. If a co-executor or trustee attempts to invoke an arbitration clause in a Will to divert your dispute out of court, that clause is unenforceable. You are entitled to pursue your claims — whether exceptions to an accounting, removal of a fiduciary, or other relief — in the Superior Court under the full protections of New Jersey law.
For those in the estate planning process, this decision underscores the importance of working with an experienced New Jersey estate planning attorney who stays current with developments in the law. Estate planning documents should reflect the current legal landscape, not aspirational provisions that courts will not enforce.
It is one of the most common questions elder law attorneys hear: “If my parent goes on Medicaid, does the state get the house when they die?” The short answer is: it depends — and the details matter enormously.
New Jersey, like every other state, operates a Medicaid Estate Recovery Program (MERP). Under federal law, states are required to seek reimbursement from the estates of Medicaid recipients for long-term care costs paid on their behalf. The home — often the only significant asset remaining at death — is frequently the target. But the rules governing when and how New Jersey can pursue recovery are specific, and with proper planning, recovery can often be minimized or avoided entirely.
This post explains how New Jersey’s Medicaid estate recovery program works, what protections exist, and what families can do to protect a home and other assets.
What Is the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program?
The Medicaid Estate Recovery Program is administered in New Jersey by the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS). Under both federal law and New Jersey law, DMAHS is required to seek reimbursement from the estates of deceased Medicaid beneficiaries for all Medicaid payments made on their behalf for services received at age 55 or older.
This is a point that catches families off guard. Medicaid’s eligibility asset rules during the recipient’s lifetime exempt the home from the $2,000 asset limit, provided the recipient intends to return home or a spouse or dependent relative lives there. But that exemption during life does not protect the home from recovery after death. The state is effectively deferring its claim until the recipient passes.
Recovery is not limited to nursing home care. Under New Jersey’s rules, DMAHS recovers for all Medicaid payments made on behalf of a recipient age 55 or older, including:
Nursing facility care
Home and community-based services, including MLTSS
Capitation payments (the cost of the Medicaid plan) made to managed care organizations on the recipient’s behalf — even if no specific services were rendered
Hospital and prescription drug costs related to long-term care
This broad scope means that recipients of home-based care programs are equally subject to estate recovery as nursing home residents. Families who chose home-based care assuming it carried no recovery risk should be aware of this.
What Does New Jersey Count as Part of the Estate?
New Jersey’s definition of “estate” for recovery purposes is broad — and broader than the probate estate in important ways. Under NJ DMAHS rules, an estate includes any property that belonged to the deceased at the time of death or at the moment prior to death, including:
The decedent’s home or share of a home
Bank accounts — whether solely or jointly held
Trusts and annuities
Stocks and bonds
Any other real or personal property
Critically, New Jersey’s rule extends to jointly held property. Even though a jointly held bank account or home typically passes to the surviving joint owner outside of probate — by operation of law — New Jersey treats the deceased recipient’s share as part of the recoverable estate. This is an area where New Jersey’s rules are particularly aggressive compared to some other states, which limit recovery to the probate estate only.
Families who added an adult child to a parent’s bank account or deed as a matter of convenience should understand that this titling arrangement may not protect those assets from MERP. See my earlier post on joint bank accounts and Medicaid eligibility for how account titling creates problems both during the Medicaid application process and after death.
When Will New Jersey Not Pursue Recovery?
Recovery is not automatic upon death. New Jersey is prohibited from pursuing estate recovery — or must defer its claim — under the following circumstances:
Surviving Spouse
DMAHS will not pursue recovery while a surviving spouse is alive. Recovery is deferred until after the spouse’s death. At that point, New Jersey may seek recovery from whatever remains in the estate — including assets that passed from the Medicaid recipient to the surviving spouse. This is an important planning consideration, particularly for couples who did not pursue Medicaid planning before the first spouse’s death.
Surviving Child Under 21
Recovery is deferred while the recipient has a surviving child under the age of 21. Once the child reaches 21, or upon the child’s earlier death, DMAHS may pursue recovery from remaining estate assets.
Blind or Permanently Disabled Child
Recovery is deferred while the recipient has a surviving child who is blind or permanently and totally disabled under Social Security standards. Recovery may be pursued after that child’s death or if the disability no longer applies.
Cost-Effectiveness
DMAHS has discretion not to pursue recovery if it determines that doing so would not be cost-effective. In practice, this exception applies to very small estates where the administrative cost of collection would outweigh the recovery amount.
The Hardship Waiver: Narrow in New Jersey
Federal law requires all states to offer a hardship waiver — a mechanism by which the estate representative can seek to have DMAHS waive or reduce its recovery claim based on undue hardship to the beneficiaries. Some states have adopted generous hardship waiver standards. New Jersey has not.
⚠️ Important: New Jersey’s hardship waiver rules are among the strictest in the country. Under N.J.A.C. 10:49-14.1(h), New Jersey recognizes hardship only in very limited circumstances: when the deceased’s property is the sole source of income for one or more surviving family members, and pursuing recovery would likely cause those survivors to become eligible for public assistance or Medicaid. A waiver may also be considered if it would not be cost-effective to pursue recovery.
This standard is significantly narrower than the federal guidance, which suggests states also waive recovery against homes of modest value, income-producing family farms or businesses, and other compelling circumstances. New Jersey has not adopted those broader protections.
The practical consequence is that most NJ families who would otherwise qualify for a hardship waiver in other states will not qualify in New Jersey. An adult child who lived in and cared for a parent’s home, for example, would not qualify for a waiver simply because they stand to lose their residence — unless they can demonstrate they have no other source of income and would be driven to public assistance.
How New Jersey Places and Enforces Liens
When a Medicaid recipient dies and the conditions for recovery are met — no surviving spouse, no qualifying child — DMAHS will seek to be repaid up to the amount of all Medicaid assistance provided for services received at age 55 or older, including all capitation payments.
New Jersey does not typically force the immediate sale of a home to satisfy a MERP claim. However, there is an important exception to the deferral rule for family members residing in the home. Under New Jersey’s rules, if a family member of the deceased Medicaid beneficiary had continuously resided in the home prior to the beneficiary’s death, and the home was the beneficiary’s primary residence and remains the family member’s primary residence, DMAHS may record a lien against the property but will not enforce it until:
The property is voluntarily sold
The resident family member dies
The resident family member vacates the property
This deferral can provide meaningful relief for a family member — often an adult child caregiver — who has been living in the home. But it is a deferral, not a waiver. The lien remains. When any of the triggering conditions occur, DMAHS will pursue its claim from whatever value remains in the property.
Life Insurance, Annuities, and Burial Trusts
Life Insurance
Proceeds from life insurance policies are generally considered assets of the named beneficiaries — not the estate — and are therefore not subject to recovery, provided a beneficiary other than the estate is named. However, if a named beneficiary predeceases the Medicaid recipient and the estate becomes the default beneficiary, those proceeds become recoverable.
Annuities
Annuities that were not liquidated prior to Medicaid eligibility must name the State of New Jersey as the remainder beneficiary in the primary position — or secondary position if there is a community spouse or qualifying child. Upon the recipient’s death, the state collects any remaining principal or income from the annuity before any other beneficiary receives a distribution.
Irrevocable Funeral Trusts
Under New Jersey law, any funds remaining in an irrevocable funeral trust after reasonable funeral expenses have been paid must be forwarded to DMAHS if the deceased received Medicaid or public assistance benefits. This applies equally to burial insurance policies.
What the Estate Is Required to Do
The obligation to notify DMAHS falls on whoever is handling the estate — whether an executor, administrator, or family member. Under New Jersey’s rules, the estate representative must contact DMAHS in writing as soon as possible after the Medicaid recipient’s death to determine whether a claim exists. This notice must be sent before any assets are distributed to creditors or heirs (with the exception of reasonable funeral expenses).
Distributing estate assets to heirs before satisfying a DMAHS claim can expose the executor or administrator to personal liability. Written notice should be sent to:
DMAHS Office of Legal and Regulatory Affairs Attn: Estates PO Box 712 — Mail Code #6 Trenton, NJ 08625 Phone: 609-588-3016
How to Protect Your Home and Assets From Estate Recovery
The most important thing to understand about Medicaid estate recovery is that it is largely avoidable with proper advance planning. The strategies that work best require time — ideally years — before a Medicaid application is filed.
Medicaid Asset Protection Trust (MAPT): Transferring a home or other assets into an irrevocable Medicaid Asset Protection Trust removes those assets from the recoverable estate, provided the transfer occurs more than five years before a Medicaid application. Assets held in a properly structured MAPT are not subject to MERP because they are no longer owned by the Medicaid recipient at death. This is the single most effective tool for protecting a home from estate recovery.
Life Estate Deed: A life estate deed transfers remainder interest in the home to children or other heirs while the owner retains the right to live there for life. However, this type of transfer must be made more than 5 years before the first Medicaid application. This strategy should only be used if the plan is to stay in the home permanently. If the Medicaid recipient vacates the home or if it is sold, it may affect the home's exempt status under Medicaid rules or be considered a receipt of assets. There are nuances to this approach and it is not appropriate in all situations.
Spousal planning: A home transferred to a community spouse during the Medicaid recipient’s lifetime can be considered an exempt asset. Proper titling and estate planning for the community spouse can limit what remains in a recoverable estate at the survivor’s death. There are also potential pitfalls to be aware of such as the unexpected death of the community spouse before the Medicaid recipient.
Beneficiary designations and joint ownership: Unlike some states, New Jersey reaches jointly held property and certain non-probate assets for recovery purposes. Families should not assume that a joint account or payable-on-death designation will shield assets from MERP in New Jersey.
For a broader discussion of Medicaid planning strategies available to married couples, including some that require a more difficult conversation, see my post on Divorce as a Medicaid Planning Strategy in New Jersey.
Final Thoughts
New Jersey’s Medicaid Estate Recovery Program is real, it is active, and it reaches further than most families expect — including jointly held property, home-based care recipients, and assets that pass outside of probate. The hardship waiver is available in theory but rarely granted in practice under New Jersey’s narrow standards. The families who successfully protect their homes and assets are almost always the ones who planned ahead. If you or a loved one is aging or dealing with health concerns, the question of Medicaid estate recovery is worth discussing with an elder law attorney now — before a nursing home admission, before a Medicaid application, and before it is too late to take meaningful action.
