Estate Planning Attorney NYC Inheritance Recovery Case

The decedent passed away in New York, leaving a residential property. The surviving children agreed that the youngest sibling would take title to the property in exchange for a structured payment to the other heirs. The agreement satisfied the requirements of New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law Section 13 2 1, which recognizes contracts concerning succession rights when properly executed. The agreement constituted a valid and enforceable contract under New York General Obligations Law Section 5 701.

The sibling who received title later sold the property to a third party. The sale generated proceeds exceeding one million dollars. However, the sibling paid only a partial distribution and refused to remit the remaining balance. The non paying sibling claimed that market expenses justified withholding the remainder, but the written agreement did not authorize unilateral deductions.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in New York Supreme Court asserting breach of contract. The claim relied upon New York General Obligations Law Section 5 701 and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 30 governing pleadings and contract damages. The court reviewed the written agreement, the closing documents from the property transfer, and proof of partial payment. The evidence demonstrated that a definite payment obligation existed and that performance was incomplete.

The plaintiffs sought recovery of the unpaid principal plus statutory interest. Under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 5001, a prevailing party in a contract action may recover interest from the date of breach. The court calculated interest from the date the property sale closed. The total judgment exceeded one hundred thousand dollars in unpaid principal and accumulated interest.

The court determined that the agreement unambiguously required full payment upon sale of the property. The defendant failed to present credible evidence of fraud, duress, or mistake. Under New York contract principles, courts do not rewrite clear terms to relieve a party from a bad bargain. The court therefore found a material breach.

The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the unpaid inheritance amount plus statutory interest and costs. The plaintiffs obtained a money judgment enforceable under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 52. The judgment allowed income execution, property restraint, and other lawful collection mechanisms. A NYC estate planning attorney can assist beneficiaries in pursuing enforcement when voluntary payment does not occur.

Clear drafting under the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law reduces exposure to later disputes. Attorneys ensure that payment triggers, deadlines, and remedies are expressly defined. Written agreements should specify interest obligations, default consequences, and venue selection. Proper execution under New York law strengthens enforceability.

When breach occurs, counsel can file a contract action, seek appropriate remedies, and pursue post judgment enforcement. Courts in New York regularly adjudicate disputes arising from estate distribution agreements. Beneficiaries who face withheld inheritance funds may obtain judicial relief through structured litigation. A NYC estate planning attorney can provide strategic representation tailored to complex family and property dynamics.