Surrogate’s Court docket Jurisdiction to Solve Shut Organization Proprietor Disputes | Farrell Fritz, P.C.


Do New York’s Surrogate’s Courts have jurisdiction to compel an accounting linked to a non-celebration confined legal responsibility company in which the decedent’s estate has only a minority desire?

Do Surrogate’s Courts have the energy to compel an accounting of an LLC in which the occasion seeking an accounting is not a latest member of the LLC?

New York County Surrogate Rita Mella tackles each of these inquiries in Make any difference of McKelvey (2023 NY Slip Op 32680(U) [Sur Ct, NY County Aug. 3, 2023]).

McKelvey and His Estate

Billionaire businessman and philanthropist Andrew McElvey died leaving 23% of the membership pursuits of Well being Diagnostics, LLC (“HD”), a Delaware-incorporated health care business, to the residuary beneficiary of his estate (the “Estate”), The McKelvey Entrepreneurial Basis (“MEF”). Bradford Peters (“Peters”) was executor of the Estate as perfectly as the bulk member / supervisor of High definition.

The Alleged Fiduciary Breaches

MEF commenced proceedings in Surrogate’s Courtroom trying to get Peters’ removal as executor of the Estate and for discovery dependent upon allegations Peters breached his fiduciary duties to MEF in three strategies:

  • Peters allegedly acted in a place of “divided loyalty” serving as executor of the Estate and manager of Hd simultaneously when he selected to “modify HD’s operating arrangement to the downside of the estate’s minority interest” in the company (sad to say, the conclusion did not elaborate upon the character of the alleged modifications)
  • Peters allegedly “directed distributions from Hd to a different LLC, generating administration fees for Peters” and
  • Peters allegedly “failed to deliver the estate’s beneficiaries with data about High definition.”

The Opposition

Peters challenged the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that Surrogate’s Courtroom “cannot compel the asked for discovery concerning High definition . . . mainly because the court docket does not have subject matter jurisdiction to purchase what would in essence be an accounting for High definition, an entity in which the estate has only a minority interest.”

Peters also argued that “MEF, as residuary beneficiary, lacks standing to look for data about Hd due to the fact it is not a latest member of the LLC.”

The Jurisdictional Argument

Part 201 (3) of the New York Surrogate’s Court docket Technique Act (the “SCPA”) empowers Surrogate’s Courts to “exercise comprehensive and total normal jurisdiction in regulation and in fairness to administer justice in all issues relating to estates and the affairs of decedents . . . .”

In Matter of Piccione (57 NY2d 278 [1982]), the Courtroom of Appeals adopted the theory that “for the Surrogate’s Court to decrease jurisdiction, it should really be abundantly distinct that the matter in controversy in no way has an effect on the affairs of a decedent or the administration of his estate” (quotations omitted).

And in Make any difference of Brandt (81 Advertisement2d 268 [1st Dept 1981]), the Appellate Division dominated that Surrogate’s Court docket experienced subject matter jurisdiction to compel accountings from two trustees who were also the 50% general associates of a limited partnership in which the trusts experienced a 50% restricted partnership curiosity.

Brandt held, “Where an estate fiduciary is a managing stockholder in a company by rationale of holding these types of stock in a fiduciary potential, he can be compelled to disclose the information of the company activities” (quotations and brackets omitted).

In accordance to Surrogate Mella:

Brandt so stands for the proposition that an estate need not have a controlling desire in a company entity for this court to training jurisdiction to compel an account, especially exactly where there are allegations of lousy religion, waste, diversion, or improper exploitation by an estate fiduciary working in twin capacities.

Applying these authorities, Surrogate Mella concluded that Peters “failed to set up that challenges arising from a fiduciary’s administration of an estate’s minority desire in a business enterprise entity are outside the house this court’s issue make any difference jurisdiction above all issues relating to estates and the affairs of decedents” (quotations omitted).

The Standing Argument

Turning to Peter’s absence-of-standing defense, Surrogate Mella wrote:

Where by, as right here, the fiduciary normally billed with using action to secure estate or rely on property simply cannot be predicted to do so since of a conflict, beneficiaries may well seek redress on the estate’s or trust’s behalf (Brandt, 81 Advertisement2d at 279-80 [trust beneficiaries have right to sue on behalf of trusts where trustees will not act in accordance with their fiduciary obligations]). The application is one particular in the nature of a spinoff motion, introduced on behalf of the small business itself, the place, like in this article, the supervisor or director will not choose motion since they are the particular person alleged to have engaged in squander, poor faith, or self-working (see id.).

In sum, Surrogate Mella concluded that she had the ability to get – and MEF standing to seek – an “investigation into the executor’s managing of the estate’s fascination in Hd.”

Views on Matter of McKelvey

McKelvey is a different case in point among the various about which we have on this blog site (examine right here and here) exactly where a controversy falls on the jurisdictional penumbra of matters belonging in Supreme Court, the place most organization divorce situations enjoy out, and Surrogate’s Courtroom, wherever most belief and estate matters are resolved.

Contrary to Supreme Courtroom, Surrogate’s Court docket is a court docket of restricted jurisdiction. So what are the boundaries on its ability to hear close ownership disputes?

There is sufficient authority that Surrogate’s Courtroom may buy judicial dissolution of a enterprise entity, even even though the dissolution statutes provide for venue of these kinds of proceedings completely in Supreme Courtroom (see e.g. Matter of Hersh, 102 Advertisement3d 871 [2d Dept 2013] [affirming denial of dismissal of petition for corporate dissolution under Section 1104-a of the Business Corporation Law]).

On the other hand, a line of circumstance regulation retains that “shareholders spinoff steps do not invoke the jurisdiction of the Surrogate’s Courtroom,” and thus, the “question of diversion of company property must 1st be litigated in the Supreme Court” (Issue of Baum, 7 Misc3d 1027(A) [Sur Ct, Nassau County 2005] see also e.g. Lincoln Initially Bank, N.A. v Sanford, 173 Ad2d 65 [4th Dept 1991] [“The principal issue raised on appeal is whether Surrogate’s Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a stockholder derivative action . . . . We conclude that . . . Surrogate’s Court does not have jurisdiction”]).

Somewhat inconsistently with this latter line of situations, the McKelvey Court docket characterised MEF’s claims in opposition to Peters as “in the mother nature of a derivative motion, brought on behalf of the small business itself . . . .” How can a person demonstrate the discrepancy?

Peters’ allegedly conflicted, dual part as both of those estate executor and controller of MD was certainly critical to the Surrogate’s Court’s work out of jurisdiction to compel disclosure of information and facts about Peters’ management of MD.

Other cases like Issue of McKelvey maintain that exactly where an estate or rely on fiduciary workouts handle in excess of a business enterprise entity in which the estate or belief has an ownership desire, the dual role has something like a prismatic result, casting the Surrogate’s Court’s scrutiny of the estate or belief fiduciary into his administration of the entity itself, at the very least insofar as the fiduciary’s conduct immediately impacts the estate or belief more than which the Court has jurisdiction (see e.g. Issue of Mooney, 263 Ad2d 727 [3d Dept 1999] [“On the question of standing, we note that [petitioners] allege a breach of responsibility, independent of any responsibility owed to the corporations, specifically the fiduciary obligation of a trustee. The objections do not seek out to vindicate a mistaken to [the entities] but, alternatively, seek out aid that would instantly advantage the trusts”]).

The takeaway is that in instances wherever an estate or trust beneficiary asks the Surrogate’s Court to involve an accounting of a enterprise entity in which the decedent still left a minority desire and of which the belief or estate fiduciary is controller, it is vital to allege some type of immediate harm to that interest by the fiduciary individual and apart from any damage to the organization alone. In a way, the petitioner must allege the reverse of what is needed of derivative standing: hurt not to the entity alone, but to the petitioner independently.

[View source.]