Vol. L · No. I FOL. LIEstate Planning

Matter · Bergen · 2026

Bergen County Surrogate Court / Chancery Division — Probate Part 2026 Bergen Vicinage (Hackensack) Robert W. Avery, Esq.

Estate Planning

Contested Will in Bergen Surrogate Court — A Will-Contest Defense Approach

Case-type narrative — Bergen County Surrogate Court will contest defended through testamentary-capacity and undue-influence framework.

Question Presented

Whether a contested will admitted to probate in Bergen County Surrogate Court may be set aside on a record of alleged undue influence and diminished testamentary capacity, where the contestant carries the burden of proof under In re Will of Liebl, 260 N.J. Super. 519 (App. Div. 1992).

Holding

Mere familial proximity to a testator at the time of execution does not raise a presumption of undue influence. Where the proponent's record establishes independent counsel, witness competency, and contemporaneous capacity evidence, the contest fails and the will stands as admitted to probate.

Brief Background

The matter concerned a will executed shortly before the testator's death naming a non-traditional beneficiary structure. A disinherited family member filed a verified complaint challenging the will on undue-influence and capacity grounds, seeking to set aside the Surrogate's letters testamentary. The proponent had independent draftsmanship and contemporaneous medical-record support for capacity at execution.

Firm's Role

Avery & Avery, Esqs. served as counsel for the proponent of the will from the complaint through dismissal. The firm developed the contemporaneous-capacity record, deposed the contestant's witnesses on the alleged confidential relationship, and persuaded the Chancery Division — Probate Part to dismiss the contest on summary judgment, leaving the Surrogate's letters intact.

Citation

N.J.S.A. 3B:3-1 et seq. (Wills); In re Will of Liebl, 260 N.J. Super. 519 (App. Div. 1992)