Craig Schmeizer, best known as a co-founder of the direct-to-consumer mattress brand Nectar, built a reputation in the bed-in-a-box boom before his death in November 2025.
His business record, rapid growth at Nectar and other sleep and home brands, made him a notable figure in e-commerce circles; Nectar launched in 2016–17 and quickly became one of the market’s fastest-growing mattress companies.
The company’s success and Schmeizer’s public profile help explain why a post-death legal fight over a Manhattan townhouse has drawn wide attention.
The immediate story centres on a four-storey limestone townhouse at 111 East 81st Street on the Upper East Side that Schmeizer bought in March 2022 for roughly $13.2 million.
After his death on 20 November 2025, the property became the subject of litigation in the Manhattan Supreme Court when the LLC that owns the building, controlled by family trusts, sued a woman who had refused to vacate the home.
The estate says the occupant has blocked access to the house and is preventing estate representatives from inventorying artworks, a wine cellar, and other valuable assets.
Court filings identify the estate’s lead representative as Schmeizer’s estranged wife and trustee, Sarah Shalev, who is asking a judge to order the occupant out and to prevent removal of items from the property.
The woman named in filings, identified in reporting as Hilarie Page, reportedly moved into the townhouse after Schmeizer and his wife separated and now refuses to leave despite notices and demands.
The estate’s complaint argues that continued denial of access jeopardises insurance, sale prospects, and the preservation of items that must be inventoried for probate.
The dispute has become heated. Estate lawyers say attempts to regain physical access included sending locksmiths to the property, which led to confrontations and police attendance; the estate is also seeking “reasonable value of use and occupancy,” estimating retroactive rent at tens of thousands per month from the date of Schmeizer’s death.
Insurers, meanwhile, have stated they cannot issue or renew coverage until the home can be inspected, a problem the estate says could leave the building uninsured and at risk. Those operational and financial pressures help explain the urgency of the court filings.
Beyond the immediate drama, the case throws a spotlight on how high-value estates are handled in New York and the practical headaches an executor faces when access to a decedent’s property is contested.
Legal experts note such disputes can slow probate, inflate legal costs, and degrade assets (especially those requiring climate control or specialist handling, like fine wine and artwork).
For an estate where property is slated for sale, an inability to get appraisals or market the home can materially reduce net proceeds for beneficiaries.
The Schmeizer matter is a vivid example: it involves a large family trust, a high-value Manhattan residence, and allegations that an unauthorised occupant is blocking routine estate administration.
For readers familiar with the mattress industry, the story also serves as a reminder that founders of fast-growing DTC brands frequently diversify into real estate and other investments.
Schmeizer’s role in founding and scaling Nectar, and later ventures tied to Resident and the Idle Group, made him both wealthy and subject to the same estate and family complexities that affect any high-net-worth individual.
Reporting on his career underscores Nectar’s rapid ascent: the brand grew aggressively online, forged big retail partnerships and reported hundreds of millions in revenue during its first years.
That business legacy forms the backdrop for why the Upper East Side property and its dispute have attracted media interest.
The case remains before the courts, and the estate is asking for injunctive relief and monetary damages. For now, the practical picture is straightforward: an executor who says she cannot carry out basic estate duties because someone is occupying the house; a property valued at about $13 million that cannot be inspected by insurers; and legal filings that seek to compel access while protecting the estate’s assets.
How the courts resolve those competing claims will determine whether the house can be prepared for sale and whether the estate can proceed with probate in an orderly way.
Leave a Comment