In Part I of our blog on In the Estate of Christina Georgiou Psoma, we explored the factual and procedural background of this deceptively complex estate dispute. In Part II, we turn to the substantive legal findings—focusing on beneficiary rights, accounting obligations, and evidentiary standards in claims against the deceased.
Accounting Obligations – When Do They Begin?
Zevoulla and Panayiotios tried to stretch Steve’s accounting duties beyond his formal role as estate trustee. They claimed he:
- Mismanaged joint bank accounts while Christina was alive.
- Failed to explain the disappearance of cash and jewelry.
- Benefited from a $24,000 roofing agreement based on a questionable signature.
But the court was firm: Steve’s duty to account began on the date of Christina’s death—not before. He was not Christina’s attorney for property, and there was no evidence of a general fiduciary role during her lifetime.
Even if Steve may have helped with her affairs out of familial support, that alone does not establish a fiduciary duty. The court declined to force Steve to account for pre-death transactions, especially given that no motion was brought under the Substitute Decisions Act to request such an order.
Life Insurance Proceeds – Personal or Estate Asset?
A hotly disputed point was Christina’s $10,006.16 life insurance policy, payable to Steve as the named beneficiary. Zevoulla argued the proceeds were intended to pay for Christina’s funeral and estate expenses.
The court disagreed.
Under the Insurance Act:
- Life insurance proceeds do not form part of the estate unless the estate is the named beneficiary.
- The beneficiary designation was clear: Steve, personally—not in trust, not in his capacity as estate trustee—was the beneficiary of the life insurance proceeds.
Zevoulla tried to argue that Christina intended the proceeds to be used for burial costs, citing an unsigned note by Panayiotios referencing a 2013 insurance application. The court found this note unsworn and uncorroborated, and thus inadmissible hearsay.
Steve testified that Christina had asked him to gift the proceeds to family in Cyprus. Regardless of that informal wish, the court emphasized that the designation was legally binding, and the proceeds were Steve’s to do with as he pleased.
The Roofing Agreement – Valid Contract or Convenient Debt?
The objectors also attacked a March 2020 agreement in which Christina allegedly agreed to pay Steve $24,000 for roof repairs in exchange for lifelong free rent.
They argued:
- The document was not properly witnessed.
- Christina’s signature was forged.
- No payment was ever made, raising questions about its enforceability.
Steve countered with the original signed document and supporting affidavit. While the objectors commissioned an expert report questioning the signature, they did not cross-examine Steve, nor did they move for broader document production.
The court didn’t conclusively rule on the document’s validity but emphasized that claims against an estate must be corroborated, especially under section 13 of the Evidence Act. In the absence of stronger evidence, Steve’s assertion stood.
Key Takeaways
- Accountability is confined to defined roles. Estate trustees account for what they do after death—unless broader fiduciary duties are proven.
- Life insurance proceeds pass outside the estate. Beneficiaries named in policies hold a strong entitlement, and informal expectations or notes will rarely suffice to override this.
- Corroboration in key. When making or challenging claims involving the deceased, ensure there’s external proof—documents, witnesses, or financial records.
- Use proportionality to guide strategy. As this case demonstrates, years of litigation can arise over estates with limited value. Early resolution and alternative dispute methods should always be pursued.
Conclusion
In Psoma, the court did not find wrongdoing—but it made clear that even well-meaning executors can face hostile scrutiny, and beneficiaries often let suspicion replace evidence.
Thanks for reading and have a great Friday!