In the Matter of the Estate of Joanne W. Schneider

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0035-25 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOANNE W. SCHNEIDER, deceased. _______________________ Submitted September 22, 2026 – Decided October 16, 2026 Before Judges Bishop-Thompson and Jablonski. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No. P- 000480-24. Advokat & Rosenberg, attorneys for appellants Richard H. Schneider and Robert J. Schneider, Jr. (Jeffrey M. Advokat, on the briefs). Williams Law Group, LLC, attorneys for respondents Deborah L. Schneider and Jennifer W. Sanzari (Jacqueline E. Lasher, on the brief). PER CURIAM Richard H. Schneider and Robert J. Schneider, Jr., 1 two children of decedent, Joanne Schneider, appeal from a Chancery Division order denying their motion to shift their burden of proof and granting summary judgment in favor of the decedent's other two children, Deborah L. Schneider and Jennifer W. Sanzari. Because we conclude Deborah and Jennifer did not share a confidential relationship with Joanne and that no suspicious circumstances surrounded the will the Chancery judge admitted to probate, we affirm. I. Following her husband's death in 1996, Joanne executed a will (1996 will) that divided her estate equally among her four children and named Deborah and Richard as co-executors. Both the 1996 will and a later will were prepared by the same attorney, who is now deceased. Deborah became Joanne's sole caregiver in 1996 and continued to reside in the family home. In 2014, Joanne injured her wrist, after which Deborah was primarily responsible for assisting with her care. One year later, Robert and Richard were involved in an altercation with their brother-in-law, Patrick Sanzari. That incident strained Joanne's relationship with her sons. 1 Since three of the four children and the decedent share a surname, we refer to all parties by their first names. We intend no disrespect with this informality. A-0035-25 2 In 2016, eleven months after that incident, Joanne executed another will (2016 will) in which she disinherited Robert and Richard. That will removed Richard as an estate representative and named Deborah as sole executor. Joanne also signed a new power of attorney naming Deborah as her sole attorney-in-fact and a new medical directive. Later, Katherine Schneider, Richard's wife who managed Joanne's portfolio, learned Joanne's investment account was transferred from Katherine's advisory management to a generally-managed "house account." In 2019, Joanne converted the account to a transfer-on-death account, designated Deborah as the beneficiary of seventy-five percent, and bequeathed the remaining twenty-five percent to Jennifer. In December 2020, Deborah accused Richard of taking a tool from the family home. The accusation led to an altercation among the siblings, police involvement, and Richard's arrest. Deborah also filed a domestic violence complaint against Richard, resulting in a temporary restraining order that was later dismissed. Following that incident, Richard neither saw nor spoke with Joanne from late 2020 until Joanne's death because he feared Deborah would retaliate against him, his family, or Joanne if he attempted to contact or visit her. In contrast, Jennifer had daily contact with Joanne until Joanne died. A-0035-25 3 In 2021, the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Division of Senior Affairs, Adult Protective Services Program (APS), investigated Joanne following a referral alleging financial exploitation. The referral originated from her investment account representative after Katherine closed that account. In the weeks following Richard's arrest, the investment company's elder abuse team expressed concern about what Katherine perceived as Deborah's control over Joanne and the declining involvement of Katherine and Richard in Joanne's affairs. Although the APS report revealed Joanne suffered from dementia, the investigation did not substantiate the allegation of financial exploitation. The matter was ultimately closed. Joanne died on June 16, 2024. Richard filed a caveat and objected to the probate of the 2016 will. Deborah and Jennifer filed an order to show cause seeking dismissal of the caveat, admission of the 2016 will to probate, and Deborah's appointment as executor. Richard counterclaimed alleging the 2016 will resulted from undue influence being exerted upon Joanne by Deborah and Jennifer and seeking certain affirmative relief including, in part, barring probate of the 2016 will, disqualification of Deborah as executor, and appointment of an estate administrator. Robert was later joined as a party to this litigation. A-0035-25 4 Ultimately, Robert and Richard moved to shift the burden of proof on their undue-influence claim to Deborah and Jennifer. To substantiate their claims they relied on, among other things, the departure from the 1996 will, Richard's and Robert's exclusion from the 2016 will, Deborah's and Jennifer's involvement in Joanne's affairs, changes to Joanne's investment account, the subsequent APS investigation, and some procedural irregularities in the execution of the 2016 will. Deborah and Jennifer cross-moved for summary judgment. They argued the evidence failed to establish either a confidential relationship or suspicious circumstances sufficient to shift the burden of proof and that the record evidence did not support a finding that Joanne was subjected to undue influence when she executed the 2016 will. The Chancery Division judge granted Deborah and Jennifer's summary judgment application while denying Robert and Richard's motion to shift the burden of proof. The judge found Joanne's relationships with Richard and Robert were both strained and nonexistent for years and that her decision to execute the 2016 will was consistent with later changes to her estate plan and her intent and circumstances. The judge concluded there was insufficient evidence of either a confidential relationship or dominance by Deborah and A-0035-25 5 Jennifer because family ties and caregiving alone were insufficient. The judge also specifically found no evidence of diminished capacity at the time Joanne executed the 2016 will, noting the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence and the fact that the APS investigation occurred years later. The judge relied on the fact the same attorney prepared both the 1996 and 2016 wills and that both were executed with similar formalities. On appeal, Richard and Robert argue they have sufficiently established all standards necessary to demonstrate a presumption of undue influence such that the burden of proof shifts to Deborah and Jennifer. They also contend the judge erred in granting summary judgment because there are numerous material facts that remain in dispute. We disagree on both points. II. We review a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment "de novo, applying the same standard used by the trial court." In re Est. of Jones, 259 N.J. 584 , 594 (2025). Under this standard, "[we consider] 'whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.'" Ibid. (quoting Padilla v. Young Il An, 257 N.J. 540 , 547 (2024)); see also Brill v. A-0035-25 6 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995); R. 4:46-2(c). Our function "is not 'to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Rios v. Meda Pharm., Inc., 247 N.J. 1 , 13 (2021) (quoting Brill, 142 N.J. at 540 ). We accord "no special deference to the trial court's legal conclusions" on our de novo review. Birmingham v. Travelers N.J. Ins. Co., 475 N.J. Super. 246 , 255 (App. Div. 2023). Based on our de novo review, we are convinced the judge both correctly denied Richard and Robert's motion to shift the burden of proof and granted Deborah and Jennifer's motion for summary judgment. A. A decedent's will may be set aside if a challenger establishes the instrument was executed under circumstances that demonstrate the testator was unduly influenced. See In re Est. of Folcher, 224 N.J. 496, 512 (2016). "[U]ndue influence is a mental, moral, or physical exertion of a kind and quality that destroys the free will of the testator by preventing that person from following the dictates of his or her own mind as it relates to the disposition of assets[.]" In re Est. of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 302-03 (2008). Undue influence "denotes conduct that causes the testator to accept the 'domination and influence of another' rather than follow his or her own wishes." Id. at 303 A-0035-25 7 (quoting Haynes v. First Nat'l State Bank, 87 N.J. 163, 176 (1981)). "Not all influence is 'undue' influence." In re Livingston's Will, 5 N.J. 65, 73 (1950). The will contestant generally bears the burden of proving undue influence. See Stockdale, 196 N.J. at 303 . However, "if the will benefits one who stood in a confidential relationship to the testator, and if there are additional 'suspicious' circumstances, the burden shifts to the party who stood in that relationship to the testator." Ibid. "In general, there is a confidential relationship if the testator, 'by reason of . . . weakness or dependence,' reposes trust in the particular beneficiary, or if the parties occupied a 'relation[ship] in which reliance [was] naturally inspired or in fact exist[ed].'" Ibid. (alterations in original) (quoting In re Hopper, 9 N.J. 280 , 282 (1952)). However, "the mere existence of family ties does not create . . . a confidential relationship." Est. of Ostlund v. Ostlund, 391 N.J. Super. 390, 401 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting Vezzetti v. Shields, 22 N.J. Super. 397, 405 (App. Div. 1952)). Suspicious circumstances may arise from a "drastic change in the testamentary dispositions of the testat[or]." Haynes, 87 N.J. at 177 . Evidence of suspicious circumstances need only be "slight," although the contestant of a will must present some evidence establishing suspicious circumstances. A-0035-25 8 Stockdale, 196 N.J. at 303-04 . If the challenger of the will successfully shifts the burden of proof to the proponent of the will, "[t]hat burden can be overcome based on proof of no undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence." Folcher, 224 N.J. at 512 . Based on our de novo review, we are satisfied the judge correctly concluded Robert and Richard failed to present evidence supporting a finding that either Deborah or Jennifer was in a confidential relationship with Joanne, or that either sibling exerted influence that could be characterized as undue so as to coerce Joanne to execute the 2016 will. B. Richard and Robert argue Joanne's relationships with Deborah and Jennifer were both confidential in nature and gave rise to undue influence. In support, they note Deborah served as Joanne's caregiver, assisted with household tasks, and accompanied Joanne to medical appointments under a power of attorney. Both assert Jennifer likewise shared a close and trusting relationship with Joanne. They also complain that they were not notified of the 2016 will. The record, however, reflects only the ordinary relationship between a mother and her daughters. Richard and Robert identify no evidence showing A-0035-25 9 that Deborah or Jennifer occupied a dominant position over Joanne or that Joanne was dependent on either of them in a manner sufficient to support a finding of undue influence. To the contrary, the evidence shows Joanne was strong-willed, understood her financial affairs, and wished to manage them herself. Katherine certified she observed no mental decline between 2015 and 2018, and Richard and Robert presented no medical evidence of diminished capacity during the relevant period. As the trial court correctly found, the record contains no evidence that Joanne lacked capacity when she executed the 2016 will, that Deborah or Jennifer exercised dominion over her, or that Joanne's free will was compromised. Considered as a whole, the evidence shows Joanne remained capable of managing her own affairs. C. The allegations of suspicious circumstances are likewise speculative and unsupported by the record. Deborah and Jennifer did not initiate the preparation nor the execution of the 2016 will. Although Jennifer drove Joanne to her attorney's office, neither daughter was present when Joanne discussed or executed the will. The record instead supports a reasonable inference Joanne chose to revise her estate plan after the family dispute at her A-0035-25 10 birthday party, following which both sons became estranged from her. Finally, any claim that suspicious circumstances surrounded the change in ownership of the investment account is uncorroborated. To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of the remaining arguments of the parties, it is because we conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed. A-0035-25 11