## Facts

- Lenore Lewis Abels executed a will creating a testamentary arrangement prioritizing the in-home care of her cats at her residence in New Rochelle, New York.
- Her will provided that if her husband did not survive her, all property except the home would be sold and the proceeds used to fund a pet trust.
- The will directed payment to Eugenia Chodnicka (the decedent’s housekeeper) of $35,000 annual salary plus a $5,000 annual bonus to live in and maintain the home and care for the cats, plus a $50,000 bonus after the last cat died.
- The will directed that the home and contents be sold only after the death of the last cat, with the remainder distributed to 33 specified animal-related charities in set percentages; the New York Attorney General appeared to represent charitable interests.
- After the deaths of the decedent and her husband in 2007, letters issued to co-executors/co-trustees Richard M. Copland and Michael Maino.
- In practice, the fiduciaries paid Chodnicka’s compensation and the cats’ care and home-maintenance expenses from estate funds rather than transferring a dedicated corpus to the trust.
- Copland petitioned under EPTL 7-8.1(d) to reduce the amount to be transferred to the pet trust and, as amended, to facilitate sale of the home and earlier distribution to remainder charities.
- Chodnicka opposed and sought enforcement of the will’s plan as written; the matter was submitted on pleadings after waiver of discovery.

## Issues

1. Whether EPTL 7-8.1(d) permitted the court to reduce funding of a testamentary pet trust on the ground that the allocated property substantially exceeded what was required for the intended use.
2. Whether the executor’s proposed reduction and sale of the residence would impermissibly alter the testator’s expressed method of animal care and timing of remainder distributions.

## Decision

- The Surrogate’s Court denied the executor’s amended petition.
- The court declined to reduce the property funding the pet trust under EPTL 7-8.1(d).
- The court left intact the will’s directions to keep the cats in the home with the caretaker’s specified compensation, and to sell the home only after the last cat’s death.

## Legal Principles

- A court may reduce funding of an animal-care trust under EPTL 7-8.1(d) only when the property allocated to the trust substantially exceeds what is required for the trust’s intended use.
- The reduction power is discretionary and does not authorize revising a lawful testamentary scheme merely because it appears economically generous or delays remainder beneficiaries’ enjoyment.
- Clear and detailed testamentary intent regarding the manner of animal care (including retaining a residence and compensating a caretaker) weighs strongly against judicial modification framed as “excess” reduction.
- Remainder beneficiaries’ interest in accelerating distributions does not, by itself, justify altering the primary animal-care purpose and structure specified by the testator.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the decedent’s detailed pet-trust plan as written and held that the executor did not show the type of substantial excess required for discretionary reduction under EPTL 7-8.1(d), particularly where the requested changes would materially alter the testator’s chosen method of in-home care and timing of charitable remainders.


In re Application of Copland, 44 Misc. 3d 485, 988 N.Y.S.2d 458 (Sur. Ct. Westchester Cnty. 2014)