A Gift or a Lawsuit? When Lifetime Transfers Become Probate Battlegrounds – Part 1

Inter vivos gifts – property transfers made during a person’s lifetime – are often intended to simplify estate administration, avoid probate, or provide immediate help to loved ones. In practice, however, lifetime transfers frequently become the most hotly contested issues in estate and probate litigation. When substantial assets change hands late in life, during serious illness, or without legal guidance, these transactions can spark disputes that rival, and sometimes eclipse, traditional will contests.

A recent New Jersey Appellate Division decision, In the Matter of the Estate of David Buccafusca, issued on March 30, 2026, illustrates how lifetime transfers can quickly turn into lengthy and expensive litigation. The case centered on the ownership of a residential property in New Jersey and a deed that was executed less than twenty‑four hours before the property owner’s death. The decedent, David Buccafusca, was suffering from advanced cancer and receiving hospice care at the time he signed the deed transferring his ownership interest in the home to individuals who were living in the property.

After Mr. Buccafusca’s death, his only child, acting as administrator of the estate, challenged the transfer. The estate argued that the deed was not a valid inter vivos gift and should be set aside because the decedent lacked the mental and physical capacity to understand the transaction and because the transfer was the product of undue influence during a period of extreme dependency. The estate further asserted that the circumstances surrounding the deed – its timing, the decedent’s condition, and the involvement of the recipients – raised serious questions about whether the transfer reflected the decedent’s true intent.

Despite these concerns, both the trial court and the Appellate Division ultimately upheld the deed. The courts emphasized that a formally executed deed is strong evidence of intent and that suspicion alone, even when a transfer occurs shortly before death, is not enough to invalidate a lifetime gift. Without sufficient admissible evidence of coercion, domination, or a lack of capacity, the estate could not overcome the high burden required to undo the transfer.

The Buccafusca case highlights a critical reality in estate planning and litigation: documents matter. Courts give significant weight to deeds and other written transfer instruments, even when they are executed under emotionally charged or unsettling circumstances. When evidence of undue influence or incapacity is thin, estates may lose disputes over valuable assets before they ever reach trial.

For individuals engaging in estate planning, this case is a cautionary tale. Informal or last‑minute lifetime transfers can unintentionally disinherit family members and create conflict long after death. For executors and beneficiaries, it underscores how “non‑probate” assets can still become probate battlegrounds when intent is questioned and expectations collide. Thoughtful planning, clear documentation, and appropriate legal guidance are often the difference between a smooth transfer and years of litigation.

In the next article, Part 2 of this series, we will explore how New Jersey courts evaluate claims of undue influence and confidential relationships in lifetime transfer disputes, when the burden of proof may shift to the recipient of a gift, and what steps can be taken during life to reduce the risk of post‑death litigation.