MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

C. Voiding questionable marriages and other contracts
K.A.L v R.P., 35 Misc. 3d 1211A; 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1740 (Sup. Ct., Monroe
Cty.)(Dollinger, J.)
Court grants surviving spouse’s motion to dismiss the decedent’s daughter’s complaint seeking to
annul the decedent’s marriage, which took place as the decedent lay on his death bed, and
“simultaneously” with the decedent’s execution of a codicil to his will (at which time it was
undisputed that the decedent was of sound mind and free from any constraint or undue influence).
In so doing, the Court noted, inter alia, that the plaintiff did not state a cause of action under MHL
§81.29 (d) which permits a court to revoke a marriage contract, because not only had no guardian
been appointed for the decedent (a prerequisite for such relief), there was never even any suggestion
that the decedent was “insane or ‘mentally incapable.’”
Matter of Schmeid, deceased, 88 A.D. 3d 803; 930 N.Y.S.2d 666 (2nd Dept. 2011)
In a contested probate proceeding, the former wife and nurse of an 97 year-old man, who had been
declared incapacitated during the course of an Art. 81 proceeding as of a date prior to his marriage
to appellant, appealed unsuccessfully from a decree of the Surrogate's Court denying her motion for
permission to file objections to will admitted to probate. During the course of the Article 81
proceeding Supreme Court had directed the annulment of the decedent's marriage but did not revoke
the Will. The Appellate Division reasoned that EPTL 5-1.4 creates a conclusive and unrebuttable
presumption that any provisions in a will for the benefit of a former spouse are revoked by divorce
or annulment and that it was enacted to prevent a testator's inadvertent disposition to a former spouse
where the parties' marriage terminated by annulment or divorce and the former spouse is a
beneficiary in a testamentary instrument which the testator neglects to revoke. Thus, it held that
since petitioner's marriage to the decedent was annulled, absent an express provision in the
propounded will to the contrary (see EPTL 5-1.4[a]), the bequest to the petitioner and her nomination
as executor under the 2003 Will were properly deemed to be revoked and, therefore, the Surrogate's
Court had properly denied petitioner's motion for permission to file objections to the 2003 Will since
she did not have an interest in the decedent's estate as required by SCPA 1410.
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank Natl. Assoc. v Haedrich, 29 Misc.3d 1215A; 918 N.Y.S.2d 398
(Sup Ct., Nassau Cty. 2010) (Phelan, J.)
Guardian moved for an order vacating all judgments of foreclosure, mortgages, notes and
consolidation agreements and for an order staying a foreclosure proceeding, arguing that the
mortgages, executed in 1999 and 2003, respectively, were made at a time that Mr. and Mrs. Haedrich
were incapacitated. In denying the motion, the court deemed “patently insufficient to demonstrate
either that at the time these transactions occurred, Mr. and Mrs. Haedrich were incompetent or that
the lender ‘knew or was put on notice’ of the purported incapacity,” the following evidence
presented by the guardian: (1) a 2010 letter from the couple’s physician, stating that in 1990, Mrs.
44