In the matter of the estate of

Vera Fedorov, Deceased

                                                         Superior Court, of New Jersey

                                                          Chancery Division:  Probate

                                                           Hudson County

                                                            Docket No. 303136

Vic Fedorov Pro Se

219 Yardville-Allentown Rd

Hamilton NJ 08620

201 232 1154


Veronica Savage

Mark Fedorov

c/o Fraioli & Moore Esq.

304 Hackensack St

Wood-Ridge N.J.  07075

201 438 5522                                       Civil Action

Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Request for the Removal of Mark Fedorov and Veronica Savage as Fiduciaries of the Estate of Vera Fedorov.

Signed order sent from opposing counsel dated Feb 17th 2012

4:49-2 Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment or Order

Except as otherwise provided by R. 1:13-1 (clerical errors) a motion for rehearing or reconsideration seeking to alter or amend a judgment or order shall be served not later than 20 days after service of the judgment or order upon all parties by the party obtaining it. The motion shall state with specificity the basis on which it is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred.

Rule 4:50 Relief from Judgement or order:

… On motion, with briefs, and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party’s legal representative from a final judgment or order for the following reasons: (a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (b) newly discovered evidence which would probably alter the judgment or order and which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under R. 4:49; (c) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (d) the judgment or order is void; (e) the judgment or order has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment or order upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or order should have prospective application; or (f) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment or order.

Relevant Case: D’Atria v. D’Atria, 242 N.J. Super.392, 576, A.2d 957 (Ch. Div. 1990) “Reconsideration should be utilized only for those cases which fall into that narrow corridor in which either, 1) The court has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) It is obvious that the Court either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence….If a litigant wishes to bring new or additional information to the Court’s attention which it could not have provided on the first application, the Court should, in the interest of justice and …sound discretion, consider the evidence.”

Relevant case:

Appellate Division’s Opinion ( “Not Approved For Publication”) in the case of“ in the Matter Of The Estate Of Vivian Fassett” , decided by the Court on 03-02-12

Before Judges Cuff and Waugh.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division-Probate Part, Ocean County, Docket No. 188933 (consolidated with L-126-11 and C-2-11). Bolling v. Capers

Generally, “‘the law requires only a very low degree of mental capacity for one executing awill.'” In re Will of Liebl, 260 N.J. Super. 519, 524 (App.Div. 1992), (quoting In re Will of Rasnick, 77 N.J. Super. 380,394 (Cty. Ct. 1962)), certif. denied, 133 N.J. 432 (1993). The trial court must determine whether the testator comprehended the property of which she would dispose, the recipients of her property, the act of executing the will, and the relation among these factors.”

Consider whether Vera intended what is alleged by the will, when the will does not specify her diverse estate; crudely dividing it into stripes, instead; when her estate is several times larger than when the 1994 will was made in 1994; when I show emailed evidence (Exhibit A) she cared specifically and particularly about her grandchildren and they are not mentioned, nor existed in 1994, and the opportunity existed to include them if the will was prepared, not merely hastily copied; When stipulations are made for Veronica and Mark upon age 30 and 40, and in 2010 they are over 40.

Fassett; “Rather, the influence must amount to a “mental, moral or physical exertion which has destroyed the free agency of a testator by preventing the testator from following the dictates of [her] own mind and will and accepting instead the domination and influence of another.” Ibid. Generally, “[t]he burden of proving undue influence is upon the person asserting it and it must be clearly established.” Id. at 71; see also Estate of Hoover, supra, 21N.J. Super. at 325 (undue influence “must be sustained by clear and convincing evidence.”).”[O]nce a presumption of undue influence has been established[,] the burden of proof shifts to the proponent of the will, who must, under normal circumstances, overcome that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.” Haynes, supra, 87 N.J. at 177-78. Hence, “if the will benefits one who stood in a confidential relationship to the testator and if there are additional ‘suspicious’ circumstances, the burden shifts to the party who stood in that relationship to the testator.” Estate of Stockdale, supra, 196 N.J. at 303.

I also found an email and documents from December 2009,  (exhibit ) to merge LLc Fedorov one and LLc Fedorov two into a new company registered in Florida to avoid N.J. income taxes. This is another item never mentioned to me by fiduciaries, indicative of the secrecy surrounding their dealings and how not prone to discussing a situation they are.

The specificity of the proposed breakdown of ownership shown in the documents, of this company indicates her will would not divide her estate into crude thirds, but like her specific concerns, regarding her grandchildren, above, have specific items, breakdowns and concerns, of which the re-signed will from 94 has none.

That she was working with a lawyer on this voted best lawyer in Sanibel, indicates she would not sign a will without a lawyer being explicitly involved she vetted, and that the alleged Special Needs Trust she signed July 20, 2010, would also recourse, reference and have the backing of a trusted lawyer.

Frankly as the plans to consolidate LLC’s into a Florida Business, (Exhibit A) were not followed through on, and while I knew moving to Florida was a good idea that reduced taxes, the imminent potential of this plan was not revealed to me, and that it has not been brought up, and kept secret,  indicates Vera’s displeasure with something, something halting her plans with it, as well as showing, by moving to Florida, a business savvy that would not settle for such an old will; This displeasure, we speculate, could have precipitated the ill deed of injury and eventual death. That wrong, in turn, would have been greatly undue subconscious influence upon her mind, beyond the mere trauma of becoming a quadriplegic without use of arms or legs.

Likewise, it is possible to think she refused to sign that old 94 will, or signed another one, confident in the honor of Mark towards a later will; even one resulting from displeasure with Mark and Veronica that summer, towards which they strove in the fall, to appear to Vera to honor her wishes upon death.

Her physical trauma and great mental anxiety incapacitated her from even enjoying TV or looking out a window, composed undue influence, compounded by her own suspicions,  the lack or rejection of financial action after lots of discussion regarding her estate in 2009 and 2010; that her displeasure with Mark and Veronica, especially as Veronica’s Family had moved in with her in Princeton in June 2010, and as Mark, who had just started managing the real estate in Hoboken in January 2010, made manifest their flaws in character over the months since the Florida plan was prepared by a Sanibel Lawyer in December 2009, to combine and move LLC’s into one Florida Business. (Exhibit A)  And note, none of this financial history has been clearly given to me at all by the alleged fiduciaries, thus covering up what didn’t happen and why.

I think my aloofness to financial discussions, and focus on farming, and my helping Vera in however it made her life easier, gained her respect pivotally, as tensions increased regarding the financial management of her holdings and her estimation of Mark and Veronica; This of course, led to their behaviors you see today. Exhibit B- emails.

This is a multimillion dollar estate, or which I am heir to a third of, through the alleged will admitted in probate, though that third is in a trust administered by Mark Fedorov. I have an interest in the principle of the estate not decreasing, as do subjects of other wills, if other wills or administrators are revealed.

While it would be easy to show the principle of the estate is not decreasing, were it not, there has been no sharing, of financial documents or reports showing this. And the lacks of protocols signify a lack of ability to grow the estate, rather defecting and diminishing the estate, for people behind them.

If I administrated the estate, I promise the principle will not decrease, there will be monthly reports accounting and detailing the estate, minutes of meetings will be shared, and extended, and I would involve my siblings and family in the estate and do my best to work with and include them in management.

It is not hard to ascertain Vera’s strong belief the principle should not diminish, a logical and current concern. Exhibit C.

That the principle and result of my mother’s work not diminish but sustain an extended family, which is my concern as well, can be seen in two emails I found on my computer showing it to be an important concern from late March 2010.

These emails also show specific concerns her will would address, particularly her grandchildren and their education and needs would have been specifically met by the will, I believe, she believed, would be enacted; demonstrates a complexity the probated will is inimical too.

This email from Vera on April 4 2010, explicitly states in grave terms my mother’s will that the principle to the estate not be reduced as that is not in the interests of those that would benefit from the estate. The email responds to Veronica  requesting consent for 65,000 dollars of the estate to be wired to her by Mark.

Vera responds, “I was surprised at your request .Why such a large amount? This is not a bank account . It is a family business for the benefit of the family, their children and grandchildren,..

Did not quite understand whether you wanted that in addition to or instead of our agreement for you to be compensated for the loss of your salary while you are on unpaid leave. It would have been considerate on your part to provide a reason. What do you want the money for? If you wanted to stay home to be with Kaylin in her early years, that would be fine as long as you do not lose the opportunity to earn your supervised hours . Income from the LLC should never supplant your need for a career, the emphasis here is on supplementing your income to enhance your career rather than supplant/override your need for a career. If you want money to improve your lifestyle , as you mentioned at the meeting, that also fine, but for predetermined period . Again income from the LLC should not stop you from striving to be financially independent. If you want some money to invest for yourself with Craig, we can talk about that.

Yes your request raised many issue in my mind. Yes it was a logical consequence from what we discussed, but it was a total oversight the purpose of the LLC which dictates the guidelines for the use of the money.

6 million was set aside for family investment . I believed at that time that the income and appreciation of that investment would provide income first in a form of a kitty for our use and secondly there would be enough appreciation of the assets or income to *maintain the original investment level. *It was my intent, and still is, that your children and grandchildren would enjoy the same financial cushion as the llc provides your now.”*

Vera goes on, “How can member access money in their own capital account? It is important to understand that the original investment was conceived as tool to generate perpetual income. Any withdrawal diminishes income for all. (her emphasis)

That is why I will not take lightly any withdrawal request from capital. Sure the money is there for emergencies, for business set up and so on, but is money taken from all/. So Veronica, you may consider all this as “strings attached” I consider that as protection of the family business for all.

I must admit, all these idea were expressed and rehashed on many occasion but I have never been as lucid about my intent for the use of the LLC money before.”

Vera goes on to write, “the LLC will have considerable assets as receivables for me. Plus it will have income from Hoboken. *Really, there is no reason for the amount of the initial investment not to remain intact.* Since it will keep up with inflation , you can be assured that probable your grandchildren and their children will have enough seed money from the llc to pay for college, down payments for their first house or for the start a business of their own. You will supplement these needs with your own funds and imbue them with a need for independence, a love for themselves, for live and for work.

Most important, I sincerely hope that they will be have the financial freedom, as you do, to make a choice for a career that will add to their personal happiness and at the time provide financial resources . I would hope that all will have opportunity in their lives to gain self realization so that they could meet their full potential .”

This email has Vera noting her own lucidity and emphasizing the importance of maintaining and growing the principle for descendants beyond her children. A will she intended, would have cited the growth of the principle and her grandchildren, which are my concerns as well, and demonstrates the concerns of the will she is alleged to have signed, to be false and fraudulent depiction of these concerns. In 1994 she had no grandchildren. Why would she re-sign a will from back then? Why, if it required re-signing, wouldn’t that will address concerns this way of her grandchildren, or maintaining the principle?

The email shows Vera’s real thinking as well. “We already agree on 10,000 annual reimbursement to each of us” This would preclude the SSD I was forced on by my brother which is roughly ten thousand a year after her injury.

The email also begins to mention her specific intentions of her estate to be used for educating and allowing opportunity for her grandchildren, her concern her descendants have careers, that the family enjoy the money together on vacations, that the investment principle not be reduced. A will not citing these complexities is not really her will. Indeed, the alleged will is only about Veronica and Mark with sole discretion.

The email also references a loan of 250,000 to Magdiel Garcia, which has never been referenced  to me by fiduciaries.

(Exhibit D)There is also an email from Mark, March 22, 2010 to Vera, emphasizing, “Our job is to save the money for the future while using it to bring the family closer to together, to grow the wealth until there is an opportunity we all agree will increase it” Surely this implies working me into the business, as I had in the past, utilizing my skills, in this transitional times, and keeping me abreast of the financial disposition. Because without full and voluntary disclosure,  and inclusion these ideals have been denigrated.

The email also identifies and unspecified loan to Veronica, probably for the house they were building in New Mexico, never addressed by fiduciary.

You can see how my siblings are simply not above board enough to competently or honestly run a business or estate respectfully.

But these email exhibits from early 2010 talk to her concerns, and contradict the re-signed will. She obviously expected to live a while longer and resolve these issues. That her death and incapacity wasn’t natural means it would have been logical to work out these concerns while she was alive. But I trusted my siblings and nursed my mother, never believing I would be excluded or not a leader in my mother’s legacy.

Yet the basis for the alleged will is precisely to not involve me, and was written in 1994, regulating my third in a trust, through the claim I am mentally ill, a paranoid schizophrenic, according to their counter claim. And if you start to see I am not mentally ill at all, have seen no mental health doctors since early 1993, nor taken medications regarding since August 1992, my sibling lose credibility.

In the nineties, I worked in restaurants, bakeries, landscaping, on farms, and substitute teaching. In 1999 and 2000 I worked for Vera in Easton seeing properties through inspection and improving 32 S. fifth St, which was then sold. Then until the fall of 2003 I worked most week’s full time, with Vera in Hoboken. In the fall of 2003 I collected 125 signatures and ran for local office on a platform advocating local decision-making in peaceful assemblies through ayes and nays of those present. I then made the case pro se in federal court, 04-366, Judge Thompson, that local officials abridge peaceful assembly, and violate the tenth amendment’s reservations of powers to the state or the people. As this case would affect real estate, pursuant to section code, my pleadings and motions were published on PACER. My interest in law led to a case I appealed up to the Supreme Court, (Exhibit E), pro se, involving an interpretation of the ninth amendment EXHIBIT  whereby if a right is denied and disparaged, it is not retained, and if not denied and disparaged, that is evidence the right has been retained. In 2005 I was put in charge of  managing The Totten Farm in Long Valley N.J. and grew an organic growing operation there from scratch culminating in ten thousand dollars in sales in 2009 to restaurants. In 2010, until Vera’s injury I worked several farms in several states to learn more about the trade. Winters I worked for Vera in Hoboken, Princeton and Sanibel Florida, where she had a house, and traveled with her as well, to Greece, and New Mexico, twice. I was in often fully in charge of people I hired to help me. In 2009 Vera put me on an 800 a month retainer. I also had access to money left me by her father. My housing expenses were covered by the farm. During these years, I was off SSI from 2003 to 2006 and off again from 2008.

I had no idea my mental health capacity was an issue until shown this will from 1994, copied and re-signed allegedly in Oct 2010, in May 2011 2 months after Vera passed. Once you see there is nothing incompetent about me, the will which relegates me may be seen as a fraudulent will. If it was valid, the issue here would have been discussed while Vera was alive. I expected a leadership role in the estate, and my treatment indicates a potentially very detrimental behavior to the estate I have been so thoroughly unreassured regarding, while even by the alleged will, I am heir to a third of it, and concerned when the only way to obtain documents be through discovery. I am just worried the estate is being looted by people manipulating my brother and sister. I mean, they know I am a competent leader. My trustworthiness has not been questioned or signified as otherwise, and I have a history of unique, strong experiences with integrity.

That my siblings claim I am a paranoid schizophrenic who regretfully refused a group home is a purposeful lie under oath. I have never seen such a diagnosis, or consideration. Their citation of a letter by Dr. Cole from 1992 stating I will never be able to hold a job, is another purposeful lie under oath. My Doctor Lyndahl in late 1992 and early 1993, understood, and explained to my mother, there was nothing mentally ill about me, but that I must be adept expressing myself.

Their claim Vera was domiciled in Hudson County is another lie under oath. She never spent nights in Hoboken since 1992, loving living in Manhattan in her apartment, and residing primarily in Princeton, where she was registered to vote, and was listed on her taxes and by the DMV as her residence.

You cannot place the control of an estate in the hands of such oath-breakers as Mark and Veronica. The health and care of the estate is not consistent with such. There are indications my mother did not sign the will, or know what she was signing, and thought there was another will in place. She had many friends, many of which she made after 1994, that were all not remembered in the will, and this is logically suspicious, as well as that was an opportunity for their inclusion. Vera would have certainly remembered her numerous friends who gave her joy.

Exhibit E calls into question the will as well. But first, let me say, as a quadriplegic, she couldn’t move her arms much at all, she wasn’t able to do physical therapy, and not her hands, so how could she physically sign the will?

Exhibit E shows that when witness Joyce Bogart  printed her name, it comes out Joyce Bogart. When it is signed, it looks like Joyce Bogert.  It is clearly not an “a” but an “e”. This sheds doubt on the honesty of the proclaimed will-signing and the state of mind about.

Then let us look at the logic behind the will itself. If there was a will from 1994 my mother desired, why would it need be re-signed? Because the original my mother had no longer existed, might a new one be required for probate? And if so, why wasn’t or isn’t there an original? Because there were wills after 1994 my mother preferred, making the 94 will unnecessary, and something she wouldn’t have wanted to sign. Likewise, this 94 will was simply copied. It was not even prepared, or amended at all to conform to 2010. Is there anyway my mother would want this? Isn’t it probable she didn’t sign this will, or didn’t want to, and trusted other much more recent wills were to be enacted?

Likewise why was I given so little money since my mother’s accident, and restricted from assisting nurses for ten dollars an hour after Feb 1 when my mother moved back to Princeton? Why was I not paid to assist in Hoboken since? It was to force me to accept  SSD. Why would I need the relatively small sum of SSD compared to the estate I was heir to? To conform to this false depiction of myself utilizing government funds. Mark applied for SSD for me. I was not on government assistance, financially fine, standing to inherit a lot. Putting me on SSD, and forcing me to accept it, through parsimony, was an elaborate plan to conform me to this will from 1994, and make its enactment  more believable and keep me from the estate. Not being on SSD would have made the 1994 will and its concerns less believable.  There was no talk about government assistance, with Vera. I was working on farms. We agreed government assistance ruined the motivation money requires. I was being considered for well-paying management jobs on established farms. Vera had me on retainer helping her, why wasn’t this extended, but to cast me in a false light consistent with a false will.

Even if we go by this will, I ask my third not be in a trust but accessible by me; I ask I  manage the estate with fiduciary responsibility, because my brother and sister have not demonstrated competence or asserted the maintenance of the principle of the estate; not showing trusty lawyers or discussing the situation responsibly or transparently.

Once you see I am not mentally ill, the will and my siblings credibility and management ability is in doubt. See how productive I am, how Vera wanted to unite the family, and you wonder about their state of mind and motives. When you see these suspicions, it is reasonable to be concerned the estate has lost money, and is not growing as it should and that I am and was the appropriate choice to ensure this.

The will also several times cites the administer of my trust as “disinterested”.  (Exhibit G)If I die and my share goes to Mark, Mark is not disinterested. By threatening to cut me out of the estate, for caring about natural concerns, he is not “disinterested”.  Putting me on SSD, not including me in work, that is not disinterested, it is an excluding trustee  keeping me from oversight and checks and balances upon the estate. A disinterested trustee would share how much the funds are, where they are, and what they are doing. They would not be so opaque and difficult. A disinterested Trustee must be above board.

This is a difficult situation I would like to broker, and gain respect for brokering, as my faith and knowledge of The Kingdom of God, and awareness of the Kingdom of Heaven, creates a useful perspective for mediation, by realizing things are not the way they are on paper.

We are in a rough transitional period, something long has gone wrong, and by managing the estate, I can gain the propriety to guide the estate and its ripples, through. I am not a weak character. And would protect the estate, and Mark and Veronica, as they seem vulnerable and preyed upon, to turn away from my mother and myself so.  They do not seem to have compared and chosen their own lawyers, for their counsel is from the same town of Wood-Ridge as Mr. Garvin, the estate attorney who my mother did not know, and has not dealt with me, indeed, my brother and sister seem to have a coached attitude. Giving me responsibility over the estate, will more likely lead to honest council with my siblings and family.

The goal of consolidating in Florida, and how that has been kept from me, not only exposes the absence of lawyers in the alleged Special Needs Trust of July 20 2010, and the will without a lawyers signature or explicit legal representation, as completely removed from her business style; but that it didn’t happen, nor was mentioned as not happening, suggests some falling out, my siblings did not want known, and did their best to minimize after Vera’s injury. If the will and trust were not signed by her, then this is more than undue influence, and the doubt upon the honors here, and my reputation, should entrust me with at least the diligent and transparent management of the estate, with the explicitly stated goal of increasing the principle; which is the prime reason for this court for me.

Her interest in her grandchildren aHer interest in her grandchildren and friends require this, particularly if a later will is revealed mentioned other heirs.

(Following before exhibits not in version to judge) Also wish to note, that the organic agriculture I was engaged in, was a very wholesome influence; which the estate needs at this juncture. And two, Mark and Veronica, as responsible for this situation as they are, seem to front for so many people, that they are not truly acting in their own interests, which would be to tell me what they were thinking, and who else is involved. I don’t want to punish, but honesty and restore and make good.



Regarding the witness signature printed “a” but signed “e”: Having hard time scanning show of this, but can show upon request.

Regarding “Disinterested” definition of “disinterested” use of “disinterested” in will, available.

Emails Showing concerns about principles and grandchildren from a few months before injury.

Documents showing specific concerns creating umbrella company in florida, talked about for 2010, using lawyers, whereas will from 94 has no lawyer.

Email showing concern to be to unite family


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: