IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CAROL A. LEE RANKINS (250686, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2686-16T3
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE
OF CAROL A. LEE RANKINS,
Deceased.
________________________________
Argued February 6, 2018 – Decided June 25, 2018
Before Judges Sumners and Moynihan.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Probate Part, Middlesex
County, Docket No. 250686.
Kenneth W. Thomas argued the cause for
appellant Ursula T. Jones (Lanza Law Firm,
LLP, attorneys; Kenneth W. Thomas, of counsel
and on the brief).
Dawn Marie Farinella argued the cause for
respondent Clyde Rankins (Santoro and Santoro,
attorneys; Dawn Marie Farinella, of counsel
and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this Chancery Division dispute, respondent Clyde Rankins,
the surviving spouse of Carol A. Lee Rankins, claimed full
entitlement to the proceeds from the sale of the home they owned
and lived in through tenancy by the entirety. Appellant Ursula
T. Jones, Carol's1 daughter from a different relationship and
executrix of Carol's estate, argued that Clyde has no rights to
her mother's one-half share of the proceeds because Carol and
Clyde's twenty-seven year marriage is invalid based upon her
discovery after her mother's death that her signature as a witness
on their marriage certificate was forged. Ursula therefore
asserted that Carol's last will and testament controls the
disposition of her one-half share of the sales proceeds, which
should be placed in a constructive trust for the beneficiaries –
she and her two sisters are the sole beneficiaries – due to Clyde's
misdeeds.2
After the parties filed summary judgment motions, the trial
court granted Clyde's motion and denied Ursula's motion. In its
oral decision, the court determined that there was no basis to
nullify his marriage with Carol under either our annulment statute,
N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1, or due to Ursula's alleged forged signature on
the marriage certificate, and thus he was entitled to all of the
sale proceeds as a surviving tenant by the entirety. We reverse
because we conclude Ursula's contention that her signature was
1
We use the parties' first names because some of them share a
surname and for ease of reference, and in doing so we mean no
disrespect.
2
The youngest sister is a minor who was adopted by Carol and
Clyde, but whose legal guardian is Ursula.
2 A-2686-16T3
forged creates a factual dispute as to the consummation of their
marriage under N.J.S.A. 37:1-17, which thereby prevents summary
judgment in favor of Clyde to the sales proceeds under tenancy by
the entirety. There is also a factual dispute concerning Clyde's
misdeeds, which warrants a reversal of the court's decision not
to consider whether a constructive trust should be imposed.
When reviewing an order granting summary judgment, we apply
"the same standard governing the trial court." Oyola v. Xing Lan
Liu, 431 N.J. Super. 493, 497 (App. Div. 2013). A court should
grant summary judgment when the record reveals "no genuine issue
as to any material fact" and "the moving party is entitled to a
judgment or order as a matter of law." R. 4:46-2(c). We accord
no deference to the trial judge's legal conclusions. Nicholas v.
Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 478 (2013) (citations omitted). Summary
judgment should be denied when determination of material disputed
facts depends primarily on credibility evaluations. Petersen v.
Twp. of Raritan, 418 N.J. Super. 125, 132 (App. Div. 2011).
Although both parties moved for summary judgment, but because the
court granted judgment in favor of Clyde, we consider the facts
in a light most favorable to Ursula. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).
Mindful of these principles, we briefly summarize the
relevant facts and assertions from the record. Eight months after
3 A-2686-16T3
Carol's death in 2015, Ursula, the executrix of Carol's estate
under a last will and testament executed on April 1, 2013, filed
a verified complaint and order to show cause to probate the estate
and vacate the letters of administration previously given to Clyde.
In pertinent part, she specifically requested to enjoin and
restrain Clyde, who married Carol in a civil ceremony on June 10,
1988, "from dissipating any portion of the [estate] until further
notice of the court." Clyde responded with an answer and
counterclaim; seeking all rights to title and interest in the
marital home,3 which was jointly purchased a year before their
marriage and deeded to Carol, but she later deeded the property
to herself and Clyde, her husband, that was recorded in the
Middlesex County Clerk's Office on July 1, 1998.4 Carol claims
she assisted her mother in the purchase, which was made solely
with her mother's funds. Clyde also claimed no knowledge of his
wife's will nor the bequests therein.
In Ursula's answer to the counterclaim, she questioned her
mother's marriage to Clyde because she did not witness the marriage
3
Although Ursula contends Carol and Clyde were not legally
married, for ease of reference we refer to the property as their
marital home.
4
A mortgage on the property was recorded on June 1, 2007, with
"Clyde S. Rankins and Carol A. Rankins, Husband and Wife" as the
borrowers.
4 A-2686-16T3
and her signature on the marriage certificate was forged. The
court in turn executed an order admitting the will to probate;
enjoining Clyde from dissipating any portion of the estate until
further court order; appointing Ursula as executrix of the estate;
vacating the letters of administration granted to Clyde; allowing
Clyde to sell the marital home with the net proceeds to be held
in the trust account of Clyde's attorney; setting out a discovery
period; requiring parties to participate in mediation; and
scheduling a trial date.
After mediation was unsuccessful, Ursula filed a motion to
amend her complaint to allege unjust enrichment and seek imposition
of a constructive trust on one-half of the proceeds of the marital
home. Clyde filed no opposition. However, the record does not
indicate the disposition of the motion. Ursula then filed a
summary judgment motion to impose a constructive trust on one-half
of the proceeds of the marital home on behalf of her and her
sisters as beneficiates of Carol's estate. In the application,
she certified that her sister, Catherine, signed her name on the
marriage certification as she was not at the wedding and was
against her mother's decision to marry Clyde. Ursula also made
various allegations concerning Clyde's emotional control over her
mother by forcing her to add his name to the deed of the marital
home; his physical and sexual abuse towards her mother; his sexual
5 A-2686-16T3
abuse of her female cousin, her adopted sister's mother; his lack
of concern and financial support for her adopted sister, his
adopted daughter; and his mismanagement of her mother's finances
that led her mother to file for bankruptcy and suffer stress that
caused health issues. Ursula further contended that these
circumstances attributed to her mother's decision not to leave
anything to Clyde in her last will and testament. Clyde filed a
cross-motion for summary judgment supported by his certification
that he and Carol were legally married, and that he had no
knowledge of Ursula's sister signing her signature on the marriage
certificate.
The court rejected Ursula's claim that the marriage was not
valid, finding there was no basis to annul the marriage under
N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1, which allows marriages to be nullified on a
variety of grounds, including bigamy, incest, impotence, infancy,
and incapacity to marry. We agree with this finding.
We, however, differ with the court's rejection of Ursula's
contention that the marriage was not legally valid because it
failed to satisfy the marriage certificate requirements of
N.J.S.A. 37:1-17. In pertinent part, the statute provides, "[e]ach
certificate of marriage or civil union shall also contain the
signature and residence of at least two witnesses who were present
at the marriage or civil union ceremony." N.J.S.A. 37:1-17. The
6 A-2686-16T3
court determined there was no legal basis to invalidate Carol and
Clyde's marriage due to a lack of two bona fide witnesses on the
marriage certificate as required by N.J.S.A. 37:1-17. Even though
the statute does not specifically declare that failure to adhere
to its requirements invalidates a purported marriage, there is a
legal basis to support Ursula's contention.
In N.J.S.A. 37:1-10, our legislature declared that effective
December 1, 1939:
[N]o marriage . . . shall be valid unless the
contracting parties shall have obtained a
marriage license as required by [N.J.S.A.]
37:1-2 . . ., and unless, also, the marriage,
after license duly issued therefor, shall have
been performed by or before any person,
religious society, institution or
organization authorized by [N.J.S.A.] 37:1-13
. . . to solemnize marriages; and failure in
any case to comply with both prerequisites
aforesaid, which shall always be construed as
mandatory and not merely directory, shall
render the purported marriage absolutely void.
[(Emphasis added).]
Thus, as we recognized in Yaghoubinejad v. Haghighi, 384 N.J.
Super. 339, 341 (App. Div. 2006), N.J.S.A. 37:1-10, among other
things, "requires that a license to marry be procured before the
ceremony." Significantly, in Lee v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 337
N.J. Super. 509, 514-16 (App. Div. 2001), we held that because a
couple never obtained a marriage license as required by N.J.S.A.
37:1-10, they were not legally married and, therefore, the
7 A-2686-16T3
plaintiff was not eligible for coverage as a "family member" under
her spouse's automobile policy. In commenting upon the couple's
participation in a ceremonial wedding, we noted the event "add[ed]
nothing to the case [because] [u]nder our statutes, the wedding
was meaningless[,] [and] [t]he marriage was void from its
inception." Id. at 516 (citing N.J.S.A. 37:1-10).
Applying these principles to this appeal, a marriage
certificate that contains a forged signature of one of its two
purported witnesses does not satisfy N.J.S.A. 37:1-10, and is
thus, invalid. In turn, the marriage license cannot be lawful and
the marriage is not legally consummated. Hence, we are constrained
to reverse the court's legal conclusion that Ursula's contention
that her forged signature on Carol and Clyde's marriage certificate
did not invalidate their marriage. Since Clyde disputes Ursula's
forgery assertion, the court should not have granted summary
judgment to either party. A remand for trial is therefore
necessary to enable Ursula to prove the veracity of her allegations
and its impact on Clyde's interest in the marital home.
In addition, we find fault with the court's dismissal of
Ursula's equitable argument that a constructive trust should be
imposed on her mother's one-half share of the sales proceeds
because under the operation of law – tenancy by the entirety – her
mother's joint interest in the property went to Clyde. In reaching
8 A-2686-16T3
that decision, the court explained there was no property to place
a constructive trust upon due to its finding that Carol and Clyde
were in fact married, giving Clyde the sole right to the sales
proceeds of the marital home as a tenant by the entirety. However,
as noted, we conclude there is a legitimate question as to whether
they were legally married. Moreover, even if the marriage was
legally consummated, the court failed to adequately address if
there were sufficient grounds to impose a constructive trust due
to Clyde's alleged misdeeds.
A constructive trust on property is appropriate in order to
"prevent unjust enrichment and force a restitution to the plaintiff
of something that in equity and good conscience [does] not belong
to the defendant." Flanigan v. Munson, 175 N.J. 597, 608 (2003)
(alteration in original) (citation omitted). A two-prong test,
however, must be satisfied to impose a constructive trust. Ibid.A court must first find one of the parties has committed a
"wrongful act." Ibid. (citation omitted). Second, the "wrongful
act must result in a transfer or diversion of property that
unjustly enriches the recipient." Ibid.After stating that the sales proceeds go to Clyde under
tenancy by the entirety, the court simply states: "The other
arguments that are set forth do not form a basis under the law to
impose a constructive trust." Because the court did not
9 A-2686-16T3
specifically address how it considered Ursula's allegations of
Clyde's misdeeds, it is unclear whether the court made credibility
determinations and found them unconvincing, or if the court
accepted them as true, they did not warrant an imposition of a
constructive trust. And of course, if the court took the former
route by deciding a factual dispute, it should not have done so.
See Petersen, 418 N.J. Super. at 132. On remand, the court must
clearly set forth it findings of law and facts to determine whether
imposition of a constructive trust is warranted. See R. 1:7-4;
Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. 424, 443 (App. Div. 2015).
Finally, the record indicates that the respective summary
judgment motions were filed and decided before any discovery
commenced. Thus, on remand, we leave it to the court's discretion
to determine if discovery should be permitted.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
10 A-2686-16T3