New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog
This case involves a petition by Clathina McMillan-Hoyte, as the Administrator of the Estate of Henderson T. Hoyte, seeking approval for the allocation and distribution of settlement proceeds. The matter arises from the allocation of 100% of the settlement to wrongful death, a decision challenged by the Albany County Department of Social Services (DSS). This blog will delve into the background facts, the key issue of jurisdiction, the court’s holding, a brief discussion of relevant legal principles, and a conclusion.
This case involves a wrongful death. Wrongful death refers to a legal claim arising when a person dies due to the negligence, intentional actions, or misconduct of another party. For example, if someone dies due to medical malpractice, the decedent’s survivors and/or estate made have a claim against the negligent medical professional. This cause of action allows the surviving family members or beneficiaries to seek compensation for the losses they suffered as a result of the decedent’s death.
When a wrongful death claim results in a monetary award, the court must determine during a wrongful death compromise proceeding, if the award is for wrongful death or for personal injury. This is a critical determination because it determines who is actually entitled to the money. If the money is awarded for wrongful death, the decedent’s next of kin would be entitled to receive it. However, if the money is for personal injury, then the decedent’ estate would be entitled to receive it. The money would go through the probate process and would ultimately be distributed based on the decedent’s will or intestate succession.
When it comes to funds allocated for personal injury, they money is subject to any creditors of the estate before it can be otherwise distributed. For example, if the decedent was receiving Medicaid benefits, the Department of Social Services has the right to assert a claim against the settlement proceeds to recover the amount spent on the decedent’s medical care. Such was the case in In re Mcmillan-Hoyte.
Background Facts
The decedent passed away intestate on January 14, 2013, at the age of 53, residing in Albany County. Survived by his wife, Clathina McMillan-Hoyte, and six children, five of whom were under 21 at the time, the petitioner received letters of limited administration on July 30, 2014. In response to a Supreme Court order dated June 11, 2020, allocating 100% of settlement proceeds to wrongful death, petitioner initiated a proceeding under EPTL 5-4.6 for distribution. Albany County Department of Social Services (DSS) contested, contending an allocation to the decedent’s personal injury was necessary, as it could be used to settle a $72,129.60 Medicaid lien. Despite no objections from other interested parties, DSS’s objection prompted the petitioner to seek summary judgment to dismiss DSS’s claim. Guardians ad litem for the infants, representing their interests, have appeared, do not object, and support the petitioner’s motion to dismiss DSS’s claim.
Issue
The primary issue revolves around jurisdiction—whether the Surrogate’s Court has the authority to modify the Supreme Court’s order allocating the settlement entirely to wrongful death. DSS contends that Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the allocation issue of the portion settled in federal court but maintains that Surrogate’s Court has the jurisdiction to consider it.
Holding
The Surrogate’s Court dismisses DSS’s objections, asserting that Supreme Court has the competence to handle all matters related to wrongful death actions. Since Supreme Court had already determined the allocation, Surrogate’s Court lacks jurisdiction to modify the order. The court emphasizes that any change to the allocation would need to be sought through a motion in Supreme Court.
Discussion
The case underscores the distribution of settlement proceeds in wrongful death actions and the importance of jurisdiction. Despite Surrogate’s Court being the primary forum for estate matters, Supreme Court’s authority extends to these issues. The court highlights that DSS had the opportunity to seek relief in Supreme Court but failed to do so. The legal principles guiding the distribution of wrongful death settlements are also referenced.
Conclusion
This case reinforces the significance of jurisdiction in matters of wrongful death settlements. The court’s holding emphasizes the Supreme Court’s overarching authority in handling such issues and underscores the need for parties to pursue relief in the appropriate court. The dismissal of DSS’s objections reaffirms the settled allocation of the proceeds to wrongful death, emphasizing the finality of Supreme Court’s determinations in this context.