IN RE ROTHKO
43 N.Y.2d 305, 372 N.E.2d 291, 401 N.Y.S.2d 449 (1977)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an action to remove the executors of an estate, and to
enjoin disposition of estate property according to contracts made by those executors. Reis,
Stamos and Levine (Ds), executors, challenged a decision, which affirmed the order removing
them as executors of the decedent's estate and awarding appreciation damages in an action
brought by the decedent's children.
FACTS: Testator's estate consisted primarily of his own artwork. Rothko was an abstract
expressionist painter whose works gained him an international reputation of greatness.
Rothko died testate in February 25, 1970. His will named three executors, Reis, Stamos and
Levine, and left most of his estate to a charitable foundation. The principal asset value of
his estate was 798 paintings of tremendous value. The will was admitted to probate on April
27,1970 and testamentary letters were issued to the three executors. Within a period of just
three weeks and by virtue of two contracts each dated May 21, 1970, the executors dealt with
all the paintings. They agreed to sell to MAG, 100 of the paintings for $1,800,000 with
$200,000 to be paid on execution and the balance to be paid in twelve installments over
twelve years interest free. The balance of the paintings was consigned to MNY with the
consignee to be responsible for costs covering them including storage, restoration, and
promotion. MNY was permitted to sell up to 35 paintings per year from each of two different
groups, pre-1947 and post-1947, for 12 years at a best price obtainable but not less than
the appraised estate value. MNY would get 50% commissions but only 40% on those paintings
sold through other dealers. Within weeks after the will was admitted to probate, the
executors sold all of Testator's paintings pursuant to two separate contracts. Reis was an
officer in one of the corporations with whom the estate had contracted to sell the
paintings. Stamos, who was also an artist, was under contract with the same company. The
contracts were worth substantially less than the paintings. Testator's daughter (P), who
under New York law was entitled to elect against her father's will, filed suit to remove the
executors and to enjoin the sale of the paintings. The lower court found that Reis and
Stamos both had a conflict of interest with respect to the contracts. It further found that
Reis discharged his duties as executor in bad faith; that Stamos did so negligently and in a
self-interested manner; and that Levine failed to exercise due care in the discharge of his
duties, since he was aware of the conflicts of interest and did nothing about them. The
court determined that the executors' acts and omissions were substantial enough to justify
their removal. With respect to the two companies with whom the executors contracted, the
court issued a temporary restraining order, followed by an injunction. Both companies
disposed of paintings in violation of the order and injunction. Finally, the court measured
damages as the value of the paintings sold as of the time of trial. The Appellate Division
affirmed the lower court. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court rejected the
executors' contention that the lower courts should be reversed because they improperly
applied the 'no further inquiry' rule. The executors argued that the rule applies only in
cases of self-dealing. In a case such as this, where the executors have a conflict of
interest, the court must evaluate the good faith of the executors, and the fairness of the
transaction. The court notes that not only is there no evidence that the lower courts
applied the 'no further inquiry' rule, but also that it is clear that Reis and Stamos did
not act in good faith, and that the transaction was not fair.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment