In the Matter of Glasser

IN RE MATTER OF GLASSER
IN THE MATTER OF LILLIAN GLASSER, a vulnerable adult.
IN THE MATTER OF LILLIAN GLASSER, an incapacitated person.
Nos. A-0500-08T3, A-0505-08T3, A-0509-08T3
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued March 21, 2011.
Decided July 21, 2011.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These three appeals, which we have consolidated for purposes of this opinion, arise from disputes between Mark Glasser (Mark) and his sister, Suzanne Glasser Mathews (Suzanne), over the guardianship and finances of their mother, Lillian Glasser (Lillian).1 The underlying guardianship dispute spawned litigation in Texas and New Jersey. The New Jersey action entailed collateral disputes over the choice of a guardian of Lillian's person, Lillian's December 2002 will, and the right or obligation of assorted parties to either receive or pay counsel fees.

In broad outline, after a thirty-four day trial, Judge Alexander P. Waugh, Jr., then sitting as the Probate judge, determined that Suzanne exercised undue influence over Lillian in a variety of ways, including the preparation of a December 2002 will. He also found that Suzanne violated her fiduciary duty in exercising Lillian's power of attorney (POA). The judge found that while Mark primarily had his mother's best interests at heart, he also acted in ways that were disruptive to her medical care and otherwise counter-productive to her interests. The judge determined that Lillian was incapacitated, but that none of her family members should act as the guardian of her person. Instead, he appointed an attorney who, in the judge's view, could act independently and could adequately protect Lillian's interests in the face of competing, aggressive demands from her children and friends.

All parties agreed that a neutral financial institution should act as guardian of her property. Based on his view of the law and the equities, the judge determined that Suzanne should reimburse Lillian's estate for monies Suzanne took from the estate and spent on her own counsel fees in the New Jersey litigation, and for counsel fees Suzanne spent in creating a family limited partnership in Texas, which Suzanne controlled and into which she improperly transferred almost all of Lillian's assets; he denied Suzanne's application for counsel fees and costs for the Texas litigation and ordered her to reimburse her mother's estate for those expenses as well; he awarded some counsel fees to Mark for the litigation in Texas; and he awarded no counsel fees to Suzanne's children for their effort to involve themselves in the New Jersey litigation. He also removed Suzanne as Lillian's health care representative, except for participation in end-of-life decisions.

Notably, no party to this appeal challenges the judge's finding that Lillian is incapacitated and requires the appointment of a guardian of her person and a guardian of her property. The appeals largely concern money — i.e., disputes over counsel fees and Lillian's will — and the judge's choice of Lillian's guardian of the person and health care representative.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeffrey M. Pollock argued the cause for appellant/cross-respondent Suzanne Glasser Mathews in A-0500-08 and as respondent in A-0505-08 and A-0509-08 (Fox Rothschild, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Pollock, of counsel and on the briefs; Abbey True Harris, on the briefs).
Thomas S. Harty argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant Eric Smith in A-0500-08 and as respondent in A-0509-08 (Cozen O'Connor, attorneys; Mr. Harty, on the brief).
Jonathan I. Epstein argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant Joseph J. Catanese in A-0500-08 and as respondent in A-0509-08 (Drinker Biddle & Reath, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Epstein and Kristine M. Dress, on the briefs).
Paul F. Cullum, III, argued the cause for respondents Alexandra Mathews, Benjamin Mathews and Roselyn Mathews in A-0500-08 and A-0505-08 and as appellants in A-0509-08 (LeClairRyan, attorneys; Mr. Cullum, on the brief).
Lawrence M. Rosa, Board Counsel, argued the cause for respondent Middlesex County Board of Social Services, Adult Protective Services Unit, in A-0500-08 (Mr. Rosa, on the statement in lieu of brief).
David B. Rubin argued the cause for appellant Mark Glasser in A-0505-08 and as respondent in A-0500-08 and A-0509-08.
Andrew J. DeMaio, argued the cause for respondent Morgan Stanley Trust, N.A. in A-0500-08, A-0505-08, and A-0509-08 (Neff Aguilar, L.L.C., attorneys; Mr. DeMaio, on the brief).
Before Judges Lisa, Reisner and Sabatino.

Source:
In RE Matter of Glasser