Skip to content

French forced heirship law vs. New York public policy

According to a July 29, 2007, article in the New York Post:  

The jilted heir of storied Lazard Freres investment banker Andre Meyer, who advised Jackie Onassis, LBJ and William Paley, is making a desperate grab for his mother’s spent estate by invoking French probate law in a Manhattan court.

Patrick Gerschel, 61, the grandson of Meyer, who helmed the famed firm for 35 years, alleges that a cabal of his socialite mother’s friends siphoned $32 million of her estate.

Gerschel’s action was based on the French forced heirship law which limits the right of a domiciliary of France to disinherit children, whether by will or by gifts given during the decedent’s lifetime. Gerschel claimed that under French law his mother, Francine Meyer, was required to leave 75% of her estate to her three children, which would have come to $11 million for each child. Instead, she made lavish donations and gave gifts to friends during her lifetime, including a $17 million gift to the Emerald Foundation, a New York charity.

 

Gerschel also argued that under French law, a decedent’s children can sue to recover lifetime gifts from the gift recipients to the extent that assets passing by will or trust are insufficient to satisfy the forced heirship claim.  

The Manhattan Surrogate’s Court dismissed the claims, finding that Francine Meyer was not considered a domiciliary of France.

As today’s NYLJ reports, the Appellate Division upheld the dismissal in a written decision yesterday, but noted that the case was litigated on the incorrect premise that French law applied at all. Rather, New York has a public policy of “encouraging foreign persons to place assets in New York,” a principle illustrated by earlier decisions holding that Totten Trusts and bank accounts held by foreigners as joint tenants pass according to New York law, not the law of account holder’s domicile. Likewise,

forced heirship provisions of a civil law jurisdiction like France are inapplicable to inter vivos transfers of property executed in New York, irrespective of whether the transferor’s domicile was New York or France. This is because the validity and effect of these transfers, as well as the capacity to effect them, are governed by the law of the state where the property was situated at the time of the transfer.

SE

Related posts:

  1. Estate Tax: The Baucus Proposal
  2. Will New York revise the power of attorney law again?
  3. Testamentary capacity and undue influence in criminal proceedings

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *