In the Matter of the Estate of Joanne W. Schneider, deceased, No. A-0035-25, 2026 WL 3093664 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 16, 2026)
This case involves a dispute over the estate of Joanne W. Schneider (“decedent”), where two of her children, Richard H. Schneider and Robert J. Schneider, Jr., appealed from a Chancery Division order denying their motion to shift the burden of proof and granting summary judgment in favor of the decedent’s other two children, Deborah L. Schneider and Jennifer W. Sanzari.
Following her husband’s death in 1996, the decedent executed a will (“1996 will”) that divided her estate equally among her four children and named Deborah and Richard as co-executors. Deborah became the decedent’s sole caregiver in 1996 and continued to reside in the family home. In 2014, decedent injured her wrist, after which Deborah was primarily responsible for assisting with her care. In 2015, Robert and Richard were involved in an altercation with their brother-in-law, Patrick Sanzari, Jennifer’s husband. That incident then strained the decedent’s relationship with her sons. In 2016, eleven months after that incident, the decedent executed another will (“2016 will”) in which she disinherited Robert and Richard. That new will also removed Richard as an executor and named Deborah as sole executor.
Richard sought to bar probate of the 2016 will, alleging it was the a product of undue influence. Robert and Richard moved to shift the burden of proof on their undue-influence claim to Deborah and Jennifer.
The trial judge granted Deborah and Jennifer’s summary judgment application while denying Robert and Richard’s motion to shift the burden of proof. The judge found the decedent’s relationships with Richard and Robert were both strained and nonexistent for years and that her decision to execute the 2016 will was consistent with later changes to her estate plan and her intent and circumstances. The judge concluded there was insufficient evidence of either a confidential relationship or dominance by Deborah and Jennifer because family ties and caregiving alone were insufficient. Additionally, both the 1996 and 2016 wills were drafted by the same attorney and executed with similar formalities. The judge also specifically found no evidence of diminished capacity at the time decedent executed the 2016 will and admitted the will to probate.
Robert and Richard appealed. The Appellate Division applied the following legal standard to this case: if the will benefits one who stood in a confidential relationship to the testator, and if there are additional “suspicious” circumstances, the burden shifts to the party who stood in that relationship to the testator. However, the mere existence of family ties does not create a confidential relationship.
Finding no evidence that neither Deborah nor Jennifer was in a confidential relationship with the decedent and that neither daughter exerted any characterization of undue influence, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision.