NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1007-15T2
STEPHEN A. WILLIAMS, CHRISTOPHER M.
WILLIAMS, PETER F. WILLIAMS and
ELISABETH M. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
and
LAUREN DWYER,
Plaintiff/Intervenor,
v.
PAUL E. PAHLCK and AKRAM GHANNAM,
individually, as attorneys-in-fact
for Nancy Hammond Williams, as
Executors of the Estate of Nancy
Hammond Williams, Akram Ghannam, as
Executor of the Estate of Roland C.
Williams; Paul E. Pahlck as
Independent Trustee of the Williams
Family Trust u/a/d December 26, 1994;
Paul E. Pahlck, as Independent
Trustee of the Nancy Hammond Williams
Revocable Trust as Amended and
Restated on July 27, 1995; and Paul E.
Pahlck, as Independent Trustee of
the Roland C. Williams Revocable
Trust as Amended and Restated on
July 27, 1995,
Defendants-Respondents,
and
PAUL E. PAHLCK and AKRAM GHANNAM, as
Executors of the Estate of Nancy
Hammond Williams, and Trustees of the
Testamentary trusts established herein,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
LESLIE WILLIAMS, as Trustee of the
Williams Family Trust u/a/d
December 26, 1994; MARLIES DWYER, as
Trustee of the Williams Family
Trust u/a/d December 26, 1994; and
GARY WILLIAMS, as Trustee of the
Williams Family Trust u/a/d
December 26, 1994,
Third-Party Defendants.
_____________________________________
Argued May 9, 2017 – Decided August 31, 2017
Before Judges Messano, Espinosa, and Grall.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County,
Docket No. C-234-12.
John K. Walsh, Jr., argued the cause for
appellants (Walsh & Walsh, attorneys; Mr.
Walsh, of counsel and on the briefs).
Leonard Z. Kaufmann argued the cause for
respondents (Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman,
Herrmann & Knopf, LLP, attorneys; Mr.
Kaufmann, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
2 A-1007-15T2
Plaintiffs appeal a grant of summary judgment to defendants
on all six counts of their complaint, one count alleging
tortious interference with inheritance and five asserting breach
of fiduciary duties. They also appeal a denial of their motion
for summary judgment on four counts. Plaintiffs' claims involve
the wills of Nancy H. and Roland C. Williams (collectively the
couple) and trusts they established while married. This action
is the most recent in a series involving these wills and trusts.1
Roland and Nancy married in 1986, and no children were born
of their marriage. Roland, however, had three children who were
adults in 1986 — Leslie and Gary Williams and Marlies Dwyer.
Nancy died in March 2008, and Roland died in August 2010.
Roland's children served as executors of their father's estate
and each received $1.2 million on Roland's passing. Under
Nancy's will, which established the maximum allowable credit
shelter trust for Roland's benefit during his life and provided
for its termination and disbursement on his death, each of his
children was entitled to $50,000 and his grandchildren were each
entitled to $25,000.
Plaintiffs in this action are Roland's grandchildren —
Leslie's four children. Gary has no children. Intervenor-
1
The prior proceedings are summarized in Judge Robert P.
Contillo's September 23, 2015 letter opinion.
3 A-1007-15T2
plaintiff, Lauren Dwyer, is Marlies's daughter. Lauren resolved
her claims before the orders on summary judgment were entered.
Accordingly, she did not appeal.
Defendants Paul E. Pahlck and Akram Ghannam provided
services for the couple. Pahlck was Nancy's accountant and
licensed financial advisor before she married Roland, and after
the marriage, he provided those services for Roland and Nancy.
Plaintiffs sued Pahlck individually and in his capacity as
executor of Roland's and Nancy's wills and as the independent
trustee of the three trusts the parties established.
Defendant Akram Ghannam did not know Nancy or Roland until
2004. Initially he drove Nancy to and from the airport when she
came to New Jersey. The couple retained Ghannam full-time to
drive and assist them with errands in 2005, when they opted to
live here year round. Ghannam's role expanded with the couple's
needs to the point of having authority under a healthcare
directive and power of attorney. After Nancy's death, he
assisted Roland with the tasks of daily living including payment
of household bills. Plaintiffs sued Ghannam individually and in
his capacity as co-executor of Nancy's 2008 will and holder of
Roland's power of attorney.
The couple established the trusts at issue early in their
marriage. The trusts are the NHWT, Nancy's revocable trust, the
4 A-1007-15T2
RCWT, Roland's revocable trust, and the WFT, the Williams Family
Trust.
The NHWT and RCWT were initially funded with an equal
number of shares, over 200, of stock in West Publishing Company
(West stock). Roland's grandfather acquired the stock as an
employee of West Publishing's predecessor, and Roland inherited
the shares. The NHWT and RCWT were established in 1991 and
amended and restated in 1995.
When the couple established the NHWT and RCWT in 1991, they
signed an "Agreement not to Amend Will or Trust." The title is
a misnomer, because the agreement addresses trusts but not
wills. The agreement states the couple's intention to retain
the West stock, "if at all possible, in trust for" their
lifetimes and the lifetimes of Roland's children and
grandchildren.
The couple established the WFT in 1994. They funded the
WFT with 100 shares of West stock.
As amended and restated, the NHWT and RCWT mirror one
another. Nancy and Roland is each the grantor and, during their
lifetime, sole trustee of the individual trust bearing his or
her name. Upon Nancy's death, Roland and defendant Pahlck
became co-trustees of the NHWT. Upon Roland's death, a Board,
with designated members became trustee. The designated members
5 A-1007-15T2
of that trustee are Leslie, Gary and Marlies, as interested
trustees, and defendant Pahlck as independent trustee.
Article I, Section C of each mirror trust defines the
corpus to include the West stock and any "additional property
added thereto." Article III, Section C, explains: "[t]he
primary and paramount beneficiaries of the Trust are My Spouse
and me. Our wants and needs shall be considered by the Trustee
without any consideration of remainder interests in the trust
after the death of the survivor of My Spouse and me."
West stock is addressed in Article I, Section E of each
mirror trust. It states the grantor's intent to "hold,
administer and distribute" the stock "IN TRUST, under this Trust
Agreement," and to hold the stock "intact . . . except as
elsewhere otherwise expressly provided." This section
authorizes the trustee to exercise discretion in the event of a
forced sale of West stock.
There was a forced sale in 1996. Thompson Reuters
purchased West Publishing Company, and holders of West stock
were required to sell. As a consequence of the sale, the NHWT
and RCWT each received $2,496,355 — a total of $4,992,710.
The couple executed reciprocal wills in 2006. Each left
his or her entire estate to the surviving spouse and to the WFT
if the spouse did not survive. Nancy amended her will in 2008,
6 A-1007-15T2
days before she died, to create a shelter trust for Roland that
would terminate on his death. After his death, each of Roland's
children and grandchildren, Marymount School in New York City
and Cretin-Derham Hall would receive designated sums and
defendants Phalck and Ghannam would receive the balance. Days
before her death, Nancy withdrew $900,000 from the NHWT.
The trial court and this court "apply the same standard"
when considering motions for summary judgment. Steinberg v.
Sahara Sam's Oasis, LLC, 226 N.J. 344, 349 (2016) (quoting Qian
v. Toll Bros. Inc., 223 N.J. 124, 134-35 (2015)). Both courts
consider the evidential materials submitted on the motion "in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Id. at 349-
50. If there is no genuine material fact and the moving party
has demonstrated entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, a
grant of summary judgment is appropriate. Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217
N.J. 22, 38 (2014); R. 4:46-2(c).
After carefully considering the evidential materials
submitted on the motion and cross-motion, including the will and
trust documents, in the light most favorable to plaintiffs,
Judge Robert P. Contillo concluded there was no evidence that
would permit a finding of any deviation from a will or trust
document or any misconduct or breach of fiduciary duty.
Having considered the same evidential materials and the
7 A-1007-15T2
pertinent law in light of the arguments presented here, we
affirm substantially for the reasons Judge Contillo stated in
his letter opinion dated September 23, 2015. Plaintiffs'
arguments for reversal have insufficient merit to warrant any
additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
8 A-1007-15T2
STEPHEN A. WILLIAMS VS. PAUL E. PAHLCK (C-234-12, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
Combined Opinion