The Basquiat Estate: Trumping The Dead Man's Statute with The Federal Rules of Evidence?

Jean-Michel Basquiat was one of the most gifted artists of the late 20th century, raising graffiti art from its street roots to the pinnacle of fine art and in the process redefining Neo-Expressionism.  His untimely death from a drug overdose in 1988 stunned the art world.  He was 27 years old.  According to Phoebe Hoban in her book Basquiat:  A Quick Killing in Art, the auction house Christie's determined that the artist had left behind a prodigious collection of  917 drawings, 25 sketchbooks, 85 prints, and 171 paintings.

Basquiat died without a Will (intestate).  At the time of his death, his parents Gerard and Matilde were estranged, but not divorced.  New York's EPTL § 4-1.1 (a) (4) states that, where a person dies without a Will and is survived by one or both parents, the whole of the estate goes to the surviving parent or parents.  Gerard Basquiat began the long process of probating the estate, a process slowed by a number of lawsuits against the estate.  Matilde Basquiat died in November of 2008, leaving Gerard as the sole administrator of their son's valuable collection.

In 1993, an art dealer named Michelle Rosenfeld sued the Basquiat Estate for allegedly failing to deliver three paintings that had been purchased from Jean-Michel pursuant to a partly written and partly oral purchase agreement.   At trial, defense counsel for the Basquiat Estate affirmatively waived his objection based on New York's Dead Man's Statute (CPLR  § 4519) to Michelle Rosenfeld's testimony concerning her conversations with the deceased Basquiat.  This affirmative waiver came after the judge in the case said that he would instruct the jury about the Dead Man's Statute if Basquiat chose to invoke it.    Rosenfeld proceeded to testify about her conversations with Basquiat. 

Rosenfeld testified that she had met Jean-Michel Basquiat at his apartment on 25 October 1982.  She said that during their meeting, Jean-Michel had agreed to sell her three paintings, identified in her complaint, for $4,000 each.  Jean-Michel then asked her for a 10% deposit.  Rosenfeld returned ten days later with $1,000 in cash whereupon she asked for a receipt.  According to Rosenfeld, Jean-Michel then set upon writing a "contract" in crayon that identified the three paintings and recited the agreed-upon price and the deposit.  The dated document was signed by both Basquiat and Rosenfeld (Rosenfeld v. Basquiat, 78 F.3d 84).

That trial ended in a hung jury. Rosenfeld filed for a new trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  In a pretrial conference, the parties were asked to brief the court regarding the threshold question as to the applicability of the Dead Man's Statute (Rosenfeld v. Basquiat, 866 F. Supp. 790; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15662).  The court had to decide three preliminary questions:

"1. Does Basquiat's waiver of his objection based on CPLR 4519 at the first trial, allow Rosenfeld to testify about her transactions with the decedent at the retrial?

2. Is Rosenfeld entitled to a jury instruction concerning the effect of CPLR 4519, if I exclude her live testimony?
3. Is Rosenfeld's prior trial testimony admissible in evidence at the retrial?" Id. at 792.

The district court judge reasoned that the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and specifically FRE 804(b)(1) governed hearsay, and not the Dead Man's Statute. FRE 804(b)(1) "provides that a declarant is 'unavailable'if 'exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement.'"  Id. at 793.  As a result, the judge ruled that if Basquiat asserted the Dead Man's Statute, which the judge termed a "privilege" (FRE 804(a)(1)),  then Rosenfeld would become "unavailable" within the meaning of FRE 804(b)(1).  The judge would then admit Rosenfeld's prior testimony, and so instruct the jury.

At the second trial, the trial court allowed the reading of Rosenfeld's prior testimony from the first trial to the jury.  The jury found in Rosenfeld's favor:  "The jury in the second trial reached a verdict in favor of Rosenfeld, returning answers to special interrogatories as follows: Basquiat entered into a written agreement in October 1982 to sell the three paintings to Rosenfeld for $12,000; although there was no initial agreement establishing a delivery date, they made a separate oral agreement approximately ten days later setting the delivery date; a reasonable delivery date was October 1987; Rosenfeld first learned of the breach in August 1988, when Jean-Michel Basquiat died; and the market price of the three works at that time was $395,000." (Rosenfeld v. Basquiat, 78 F.3d 84).  The jury awarded Rosenfeld $384,000, the market value of the paintings minus the remainder of the purchase price, plus $217,301.92 in interest.  The Basquiat Estate appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Second circuit Court of Appeals distinguished the hearsay exceptions under the Federal Rules of Evidence from the Dead Man's Statute.  The court said that the hearsay rule (Rule 802) is a rule of exclusion that makes certain out-of-court statements inadmissible as evidence.  FRE 804 lists several exceptions to the exclusionary rule for when a witness is "unavailable" to testify.  FRE 804 (a) defines "unavailability," one instance of which is that the declarant "is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement." The District Court had ruled that New York's Dead Man's Statute was such a privilege, thus making Rosenfeld "unavailable" and her prior testimony admissible if the Basquiat Estate asserted the Dead Man's Statute.

But the Second Circuit declined to follow the District Court in is definition of the Dead Man's Statute as a "privilege" under the FRE.  Instead the Second Circuit defined the Dead Man's Statute as a statute regarding witness competency.  But the court went on the say that even if Rosenfeld's prior testimony could have been brought in under an exception to the hearsay rule of the FRE, that testimony would still have been barred by the Dead Man's Statute.  The Federal Rules of Evidence are not independent of state statutes  While FRE 804(b)(1) does not bar the admission of prior testimony of a witness who is now "unavailable," it does not resolve the threshold issue of whether that testimony is admissible in the first place.  New York's Dead Man's Statute made Rosenfeld legally incompetent as a witness.  Therefore, the FRE was irrelevant in this case.  Absent a compelling federal interest, federal courts may not ignore state statutes in their rulings unless the statute is unconstitutional.  The judgment of the district court was reversed a new trial was ordered.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, review your current legal life plan, or put together a legal life plan that is tailored for your needs, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form. I will get back to you promptly.


I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on "Subscribe to" on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published. Thank you.

All Not in the Family? The Dead Man's Statute and Pedigree Declarations

At times Wills contest expose deep family secrets. There are even cases where the revelation of the secret leaves even more tantalizing questions unanswered. Such is the case of In the Matter of the Estate of Esther T., 86 Misc. 2d 452; 382 N.Y.S.2d 916 (1976), where a son's use of an exception to the Dead Man's Statute led to an unexpected result.

One exception to the Dead Man's Statute in New York is a pedigree declaration. Pedigree declarations, or statements regarding one's parentage, are admissible in probate proceedings. These declarations necessarily include conversations held by the person testifying with the decedent, something the statute seeks to eliminate because the decedent is unavailable to testify on these same facts.

In the Matter of the Estate of Esther T. ,the Surrogate's Court of New York, Nassau County, heard testimony from a contestant, the decedent's purported son, to the admission of a will to probate by the proponent, the decedent's purported husband. According to the contestant, he was the sole child of the decedent and her "purported" husband George M. "Of necessity, proof of pedigree must be based upon hearsay. The issue of lineage rarely comes into question when all of the parties who could testify are available to testify. The necessary foundation for the admission of pedigree declarations is as follows: (1) the declarant is dead; (2) the declarant was related by blood or affinity to the family concerning which he speaks; (3) the declarations were made ante litem motam" Id., at 455. While pedigree declarations are admissible in evidence, the trier of fact must still weight these declarations to determine their truthfulness.

To support his claim, the contestant also submitted the testimony of the decedent's younger siblings, a brother and a sister. The brother testified that his sister had been born in Brooklyn, NY in 1904 and was about 70 years of age at the time of her death. He further testified that her maiden name was Esther Do, but that she was also known as Estelle Do or Du. In 1928 or 1929, she had married George M, a real estate broker and traveling salesman of novelties, a profession that required frequent out-of-state travel. He was often accompanied by his wife. Esther conducted a tax preparation business from her husband's real estate office. Over objection, the brother testified that Esther has told him that the contestant was her son.

The sister, an attorney, testified that her law office was located close to her deceased sister's home and that she saw her sister frequently. She further testified of her sister's pregnancy in 1946, and that in December of 1946 her sister and George M had closed their office had gone to Florida. She had learned of the birth of her nephew from George M.

It is clear from the record that Esther suffered several miscarriages. At issue was whether she ever experienced a live birth and whether the contestant was indeed her son. Conflicting evidence on this point was presented to the court. George M conceded that the contestant had been held out as the son of the deceased and himself. However, he also testified that the contestant was neither the natural nor the adopted son of the deceased and thus should not be a distributee under the Will. To support this claim, he submitted a certified hospital record from North Shore Hospital dated 29 May 1970 containing Esther's medical history that stated she had experienced one miscarriage and no live children, as well as her blood transfusion record that indicated her blood type was O-RH +.

George M also submitted into evidence a certified copy of a hospital record dated 5 March 1947 from the Atlantic City Medical Center for a certain Estelle Du. Her blood type was AB-RH +. Estelle had given birth there to a child whose footprint was part of the hospital record. Upon recross-examination, the contestant admitted that his blood type was A+.

Because blood typing cannot change, the court determined that the contestant was not the son of the deceased and George M. He was the son of Estelle Du who was 19 years old at the time of his birth, while Esther was 43 years old at the time of his birth. As such, he was not a distributee under the decedent's Will.

Interestingly, the court noted that George M had not submitted any proof that he was the decedent's surviving spouse and thus the decedent's sole distributee. He was ordered to produce proof of his marriage to Esther within 10 days. Absent this proof, Esther's surviving brother and sister and any children of predeceased siblings would become distributees under the Will if admitted to probate, or intestate heirs should the Will not be admitted to probate.

While pedigree declarations are an exception under New York's Dead Man's Statute, they are not automatically admitted as true statements. As the Matter of the Estate of Esther T illustrates, pedigree declarations can sometimes open a Pandora's box of closely held family secrets.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, review your current legal life plan, or put together a legal life plan that is tailored for your needs, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form. I will get back to you promptly.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on "Subscribe to" on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published. Thank you.

New York's Dead Man's Statute and Oral Promises

Oral promises concerning property made by one family member to another can have devastating consequences after the promisor's death if these promises are not memorialized in writing.  That is because New York's Dead Man's Statute (C.P.L.R. 4519) prohibits the admission of such oral promises by an interested party (in this case, the promisee) in the case of a Wills contest or other litigation.  The family strife that results due to the absence of a writing concerning the future ownership of the property in question can be easily avoided by consulting an attorney. 

Consider the case of Elizabeth Connelly Payne and her brother F. Henry Connelly (Payne v Connelly (1969, 3d Dept) 32 App Div 2d 693, 299 N.Y.S.2d 1013).  At issue in this case was whether Elizabeth could prove that she had been induced to relinquish a present benefit in return for her brother Henry's promise of future gain.  Elizabeth and Henry's aunt owned quite a bit of stock in the National Dairy Products Corporation.  Elizabeth Payne alleged that she was persuaded by her brother to dissuade their aunt from changing her will and leaving all of her stock holdings to Elizabeth (the original will left all of the stock to Henry), in exchange for Henry's promise to give Elizabeth one half of the stock after their aunt's death.

In due course, their aunt passed away leaving Henry as the sole beneficiary of the stock in question.  And then something unexpected happened:  Henry died as well, but without a Will (intestate).  All of his assets were distributed under New York's intestacy law to his spouse, Phyllis (the respondent in this case) and their children.   Henry also left behind significant assets in the Valley Coal and Supply Company to his heirs.  The only people present during the conservations concerning the aunt's will had been Elizabeth and Henry.  The Dead Man's Statute now prohibited Elizabeth from bringing in those conversations as evidence at trial. 

But what about her sister Florence and her brother-in-law's assertions concerning statements that Henry made during a Labor Day family gathering in 1962 during which he purportedly said that Elizabeth was to receive half of the National Dairy Product Corporation stock?  The court found that, while it was clear that the parties were discussing the aunt's Will, Henry's statement still did not go to the issue of whether the aunt had been induced to not make changes in her Will in favor of Elizabeth in return for Henry's promise to give Elizabeth half after their aunt's death.  As a result, Elizabeth's claim was denied by the court.

When it comes to our family, we want to believe that family members have our best interests at heart.  That is the case more often than not.  However, as in the case of Henry, unexpected events such as a sudden death and legal or mental incapacity can rob the best of intentions of their desired impact.  And once the unexpected happens, New York's Dead Man's statute prohibits the testimony of these oral promises with the deceased.

The best course of action when it comes to oral promises between family members or close associates is to memorialize them in writing.  You should consult an attorney to make sure that the proper legal documents are drafted and then properly executed under New York law.  Both parties will then have the assurance that the intentions expressed in oral promises will be carried out no matter what happens to either party.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, review your current legal life plan, or put together a legal life plan that is tailored for your needs, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form. I will get back to you promptly.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on "Subscribe to" on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published.  Thank you.

New York's Dead Man's Statute: Some Preliminary Considerations

New York is in the minority of states that still have a Dead Man's Statute.  New York's Dead Man's Statute, also known as CPLR § 4519, came into law in 1851.  The legislative concern at the time was over perjury:  that self-interest would prevail when a person testified in a civil matter involving conversations with a now-deceased person where the witness had a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case.  That concern persists today and is particularly evident in the area of Wills and trusts.

New York's Dead Man's Statute codified what had been common law practice since the time of Elizabeth I of England.   It is intended to protect the decedent's estate against claims of conversations or interactions that cannot be verified.  What a Dead Man's Statute does is make a witness legally incompetent to testify about conversations that the witness had with a deceased person in a case where s/he could benefit financially if the trier of fact found that evidence to be materially determinative.   Since the deceased/legally incompetent person's lips are forever sealed, so must the lips of the other conversant with respect to the matter in contest.  In New York, the statute has been invoked in cases involving such matters as bequests in Wills; trust provisions;  requests for specific performance; and lack of testamentary capacity. 

There are also interesting cases where the Dead Man's Statute intersects with the competency of a witness exception of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 601, at which point the Dead Man's Statute supplies the state law .  At times, the Dead Man's Statute serves as a statutory exception to the hearsay rule.  At other times, the hearsay exception in the Federal Rules trumps the Dead Man's Statute.  Establishing pedigree for either the witness or the decedent in a Wills contest is one such example (FRE 804(b)(4)).

In New York, there are three exceptions to the Dead Man's Statute:

1. in a tort action for negligence involving a car, boat, or plane, an interested witness can testify to the general facts and results of the accident;
2. in estate cases where the estate "opens the door" by offering evidence or questioning an interested witness about conversations or transactions with the deceased;  
3. where the estate of the deceased does not lodge a timely objection during a Wills contest or trial, then the estate waives it right to object based on the Dead Man's Statute.

The first exception is an important one in vehicular negligence actions because New York does not have a guest statute.  Thus New York's interest is to allow a New York State domiciliary the right to recover damages against a negligent driver.  The next two exceptions can be triggered during an estate contest, for instance, where a  substantial "gift" is concerned.

In future posts, I will examine specific cases in which the Dead Man's Statute figured prominently.  Each case presents an interesting set of facts that prepares the stage for the application of the Dead Man's Statute. 

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, review your current Will, or put together an estate plan that is tailored for your needs, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form. I will get back to you promptly.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on "Subscribe to" on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published.
Thank you.