Bamonte v. Charatan
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-00795
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bamonte v. Charatan, Judge Karas ordered the parties to explain probate and citizenship issues by May 6, 2022.
The plaintiffs and defendant were each required to file a letter addressing the court’s requested probate-exception and citizenship explanations.
What happened
In Bamonte v. Charatan, the plaintiffs are estate representatives, and the defendant is identified as the nominated executor of another estate. The court did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute in this order.
The court asked each side to file a letter explaining the federal probate exception and how it applies to New York attachment orders. It also asked the parties to explain how citizenship and domicile differ for an estate administrator, an individual, and a nominated estate executor.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas required the letters to be filed by 4:00 p.m. on May 6, 2022, limited them to four pages, and stated that late or longer letters would not be considered.
The detailed version
- Bamonte v. Charatan · No. 7:22-cv-00795
- Kenneth Karas
- May 3, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs are Carol Bamonte, as administrator of the Estate of Kathleen Durst, and James McCormack, Virginia McKeon, and Mary Hughes, as co-administrators of the Estate of Anne C. McCormack, described in the caption as a distributee of the Estate of Kathleen Durst. The defendant is Debrah Lee Charatan, identified in the caption as the nominated executor of the Estate of Robert Durst.
Court’s Request
The court requested that each party file a letter addressing two subjects. First, the parties must discuss the federal courts’ “probate exception,” a limitation on federal jurisdiction involving probate matters, and its application to orders of attachment under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 6201. The court cited Marshall v. Marshall and Lefkowitz v. Bank of New York.
Second, the parties must explain the distinction between an estate administrator’s citizenship for diversity jurisdiction, an individual’s domicile when acting personally, and that same individual’s domicile when acting as an estate executor, assuming the person’s nomination is successful. Diversity jurisdiction is the authority of a federal court to hear certain disputes involving parties connected to different states.
Disposition
The court ordered the letters to be filed on the docket by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 6, 2022. Each letter could not exceed four pages. The court stated that letters exceeding the limit or filed after the deadline would not be considered. This order requested briefing on jurisdictional and procedural issues; it did not decide those issues or resolve the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.