There were a number of recently decided cases that continue to protect litigants with courts doing the right thing.
 
In the Estate of Benedek, 2019-1371, the Surrogate found that the daughter of a decedent’s who petitioned the court to have the executor, her brother removed was found to be without merit and the petition was dismissed.  This was a case of a sibling rivalry and the court saw it for what it was. The son, John was appointed and the daughter, Catherine, was not.  The daughter, Catherine, claimed that John, her brother, was delaying the sale of a cooperative apartment which she had a claim to and that he did not properly collect pension funds that should have been paid to the estate. 
 
 John had provided an adequate explanation for his delay in selling the decedent’s cooperative apartment. There was also a delay caused by the pandemic. He was unable to receive preliminary letters quickly to be able to act on behalf of the estate do to the delays caused by COVID.  The court found that Catherine’s objections failed to raise triable issues of fact to disqualify her brother, and that he did not breach his fiduciary duty as an executor to warrant him being removed.  The courts honor the wishes of a decedent in their wills. In this case the mother specifically chose her son to act as the executor. There was no basis in the law or the facts to warrant the court going against the mother’s wishes.
 
            In another case in Nashville County family court, a 70-year-old woman filed for spousal support against her husband, Cleveland W., who was 66 years old at the time.  This case should probably be called, “You Can’t Help a Girl for Trying.”  The parties were married in 1996 and have one child together.  The parties separated after several months of marriage and had little or no communication with each other.  Cleveland W. was incarcerated for almost a decade.  He had a part time job where he earned only $18.26 per hour and he received Social Security Disability of $466.00 monthly.  His wife actually asked for him to support her in the petition. 
 The court carefully pondered this situation and looked at all the facts, which is what it should always do. 
 
 I have often written that cases should never be handled in a cookie cutter fashion..  Each case needs to be looked at according to the specific circumstances.  In this case, the court found that Cleveland W. did not have sufficient means or the ability to earn such means to warrant an award of spousal support to Ruby W. In addition to the fact that they were separated for such a long period of time.  As a result of these findings Ruby was denied an award of spousal support. Ruby W. v. Cleveland W., F-08836-22
 
            In a New York Supreme Court family law case, Justice David B. Cohen in Suzuki v. Greenberg, the court deservedly reprimanded an attorney and sanctioned him $54,774.00 as a result of his having attempted to deceive the court in this proceeding and in the prior proceeding.  It appears that in 2015, the plaintiff, wife and her former husband, entered into a settlement of their divorce action.  There was a parenting plan and a child support stipulation.  Each stipulation needed to be included in the filing of the judgment and mentioned in the judgement itself. Golling, the husband, through his attorney failed to submit the proposed judgment and ancillary documents needed for the judgment of divorce to be granted and withheld information about the custody agreement.  As a result, the judgment was not entered. 
This caused the Plaintiff wife damages.  Due to his misleading the court by failing to include and mention the final custody order when filing for a final judgment of divorce, the court awarded damages and counsel fees and costs.  Once again, the court emphasized the importance of doing what you are required to do and did not make excuses for bad or unprofessional behavior.  Let’s hope this trend continues.