## Facts

- Mae Platto Fischer died intestate in New Jersey, survived by her husband, Frederick G. Fischer, and her brother, George Platto.
- Frederick applied in New Jersey for letters of administration, alleging Mae was domiciled (a resident) in New Jersey at her death, and the New Jersey court issued him original letters of administration.
- George received no notice of the New Jersey application or the issuance of letters.
- The asserted domicile mattered because under New Jersey law, if Mae was domiciled in New Jersey, Frederick would be her sole heir and would have the sole right to letters of administration, with no requirement to notify George.
- George then brought a proceeding in New York, alleging Mae was domiciled in New York at her death; process was served on Frederick.
- While the New York matter was pending, Frederick became mentally deranged, and the New Jersey court appointed Milton Mermelstein as substituted administrator in New Jersey.
- Milton appeared in the New York proceeding and also filed a separate New York application seeking ancillary letters there on the theory that Mae’s domicile at death was New Jersey.
- Under New York law, ancillary letters could issue only if the original letters were issued in the state of the decedent’s domicile at death; thus, both New York matters turned on the same domicile question.
- The New York actions were consolidated and tried, with Frederick, George, and Milton participating and contesting domicile.
- The New York court found that Mae was domiciled in New York at death and issued original letters of administration to George.
- After the New York determination, George petitioned the New Jersey Prerogative Court to revoke the letters issued to Milton and to issue New Jersey letters to George, arguing the earlier New Jersey grant rested on a mistaken domicile premise and that he was not bound by the initial New Jersey proceeding because he had not been notified or made a party.

## Issues

1. Whether George, who received no notice and was not a party to the initial New Jersey administration proceeding, was bound in New Jersey by the ex parte grant of letters based on Frederick’s allegation of New Jersey domicile.
2. Whether the New York court’s litigated determination that Mae was domiciled in New York at death was conclusive in the later New Jersey proceeding between the same parties (or their privies), so that New Jersey could not re-try the domicile question.
3. Whether, in light of the New York judgment and the lack of notice to George in the original New Jersey application, the New Jersey court should revoke the outstanding New Jersey letters and issue letters to George.

## Decision

- The court granted George Platto’s application.
- The court treated the New York adjudication of Mae’s domicile (New York) as conclusive in the New Jersey proceeding because the domicile issue had been tried in New York with the interested parties before that court.
- The court concluded that the earlier New Jersey letters—issued on an uncontested assertion of New Jersey domicile and without notice to George—did not foreclose George from seeking relief once domicile had been decided after contested litigation elsewhere.
- The court revoked the New Jersey letters issued to Milton Mermelstein and directed that letters be issued to George Platto.

## Legal Principles

- Domicile at death determines which state’s law governs intestate succession to personal property and who has the superior claim to administer the estate.
- When a court of another state has finally determined domicile in a contested proceeding in which the interested parties (or those standing in their place) appeared and litigated the issue, that determination is conclusive in a later proceeding between the same interests in New Jersey.
- A prior, ex parte issuance of letters of administration based on an untested allegation of domicile—especially where an interested heir received no notice—does not prevent that heir from later challenging the administration and seeking appropriate letters once domicile is established after notice and hearing.
- A probate court may revoke letters of administration issued on a mistaken factual basis, including an erroneous assumption about the decedent’s domicile, and issue letters to the person shown to have the better right in light of the controlling domicile determination.
- In New York, the availability of ancillary letters depends on whether the original letters were issued in the state of the decedent’s domicile at death; this can make domicile the central question in consolidated administration proceedings.

## Conclusion

In re Fischer’s Estate held that, because Mae Fischer’s domicile was fully litigated in New York with the relevant parties participating, New Jersey would treat New York’s domicile determination as conclusive, reopen the New Jersey administration that began with an uncontested domicile claim and no notice to the brother, revoke the substituted administrator’s letters, and issue letters of administration to the brother who had been appointed in New York.


In re Fischer's Estate, 118 N.J. Eq. 599, 180 A. 633 (1935)