Executor's Deeds Vacated as Void Ab Initio Where Letters Testamentary Were Obtained by False Pretenses

Wills and Estate Planning Controversies — Case Analysis

Executor's Deeds Vacated as Void Ab Initio Where Letters Testamentary Were Obtained by False Pretenses

Prepared March 15, 2026

Court

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

Date

March 11, 2026

Citation

In the Matter of Ammie Oglesby, Deceased, No. 2024-03087, 2026 WL 681622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't Mar. 11, 2026)

Summary of Relevant Facts

Ammie Oglesby and Ethel Oglesby each owned a one-half interest in certain real property located in St. Albans, Queens. The decedent passed away in February 2017. A purported will named Robert Boyd as executor and sole residuary beneficiary. In April 2017, Boyd filed a petition for probate. In December 2017, Boyd filed an amended petition that listed only himself and Orian Collins, the decedent's niece, as the only parties of full age and sound mind interested in the will. The Surrogate's Court granted probate and issued letters testamentary to Boyd. By deed dated June 22, 2018, Boyd, as executor, transferred the decedent's 50% interest to MRAG Development, LLC. On the same date, Collins, claiming to be the “sole surviving heir of the estate of Avery Oglesby,” transferred the remaining 50% interest to MRAG. To secure a loan, MRAG gave a mortgage on the property to Amida Specialty Opportunity Investments, LLC.

Procedural Background

In May 2020, the Surrogate's Court vacated its 2018 decree granting probate, revoked letters testamentary issued to Boyd, on the ground that only Boyd and Collins were cited in the initial probate proceeding and jurisdiction was not obtained over all necessary parties. The Public Administrator of Queens County was appointed temporary administrator. The petitioner then moved for summary judgment vacating the deeds from Boyd and Collins to MRAG, turning over possession of the property to the decedent's estate, and declaring Amida's mortgage void. The Surrogate's Court granted the motion. MRAG and Amida appealed.

Main Controversies

The main controversies were: (1) whether deeds executed by an executor whose letters testamentary were obtained by false pretenses are void ab initio or merely voidable; (2) whether the protective provisions of SCPA 720, which generally render enforceable the acts of a removed fiduciary so long as those acts were undertaken in good faith, apply when the executor obtained the letters through false pretenses; and (3) whether a purchaser can claim bona fide purchaser for value protection under Real Property Law section 266 where the underlying transaction is void rather than merely voidable.

Position of the Parties

MRAG and Amida argued that the deeds should be treated as merely voidable (not void), that SCPA 720 protected the conveyances because the good faith of the executor was a question of fact, and that they were bona fide purchasers for value entitled to protection under Real Property Law section 266. The petitioner argued that Boyd had obtained letters testamentary by false pretenses—by failing to cite all necessary interested parties—and that a deed obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, making the mortgage based on that deed likewise void.

Holding or Decision

The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the deeds from Boyd to MRAG and from Collins to MRAG were void ab initio, the mortgage to Amida was void, and possession of the property was properly ordered turned over to the decedent's estate.

Reasons for the Decision

The court applied the principle that a deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid. The court found that the petitioner demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment by submitting evidence establishing that Boyd's deed to MRAG was obtained by false pretenses and that Collins' deed was based on false pretenses and facially defective—Collins could not transfer the 50% interest of her aunt Ethel, who was a joint tenant. On the SCPA 720 issue, the court distinguished Matter of Grillo, which had upheld transactions by a removed executor where the parties acted in good faith. The court emphasized that SCPA 720's protective provisions apply only to acts undertaken by the estate's fiduciary in good faith. Here, Boyd had acted under false pretenses in obtaining letters testamentary, which were then used to transfer the property for his personal benefit—the transfer does not enjoy the protective provisions of SCPA 720. On the bona fide purchaser defense, the court held that Real Property Law section 266 does not apply where the underlying transaction is void rather than merely voidable.