New York Probate and Estate Administration Blog

Lillian Sandow had two wills. One dated July 16, 1947 which was the one presented to the court for probate, and the other one was dated February 16, 1945. In the February 16, 1945 will, there were two beneficiaries declared as sole legatees. They were contending the July 16, 1947 will as a forgery. They are saying that the last three pages of the will which had the signature were authentic, and the first four pages were substituted.

According to a New York Probate Lawyer, the first four pages are the ones that contained the legacies and the appointment of the executrix. The last three pages of the signature of Ms. Sandow, the witnesses’ signature and the powers of attorney. They cited this and much on a previous case of Hinderson’s will and Teller’s will. In both these cases, the mere allegation of fraud caused the will to be vacated. In these cases though, the court had established that the fraud was in stopping the filing of any contest against the will. It was not an attack on the will itself. They also failed to notice that in both cases, the fraud was established in the preliminary hearing.

The petitioners claim there was no fraud in the withholding of the earlier will, and allegedly they found the earlier will in the office of a lawyer, who was not connected, in any way, to the parties. They also said that they questioned the authenticity of the will the same night that it was read and one consulted an attorney about it. He was advised that not being a beneficiary without an earlier will that shows he was part of is not going to be accepted by the court. A Manhattan Probate Lawyer mentioned that it was only after the older will was found that they felt they had a stand to contest the will says a New. They contest does not name the perpetrators of the forgery, but the words are directed to the executrix and her attorney as she is the sole beneficiary of the will.

The case was unclear and unconvincing. They had a witness testify that the ink in the last three pages was different from the first four but the same typewriter was used for all pages, and the paper used was also the same. The typist was also interviewed, and she said she used two kinds of typing styles, which was also one of the things they were questioning. According to the expert, it a standard for that stenographer to use both techniques in typing documents. They further interviewed the attorney that testified as to how the will was prepared and kept. They also asked two witnesses who had a conversation with the testator about her will, but they also indicated that they were in no position to authenticate if that was the same will or not.

According to a Queens Probate Lawyer, they were not able to show a substantial basis for contesting the will, which was the requirement for this type of attack on a will. Their petition was just based on a suspicion that was also lost after the attorney and the stenographer testified. They were insisting on a trial by jury for the case, but their case lacks the merit that the trial requires. They were not able to show a degree of probability for a well-founded claim. The case was dismissed by the Appellate Court, and the will was not vacated.

Continue reading "Lillian Sandow had two wills" »

Arthur D. Norcross, executed a will that gives all his residuary estate to charity. His daughter, because the bequest exceeded half of the estate filed to contest the will. The executors countered this contest saying that the daughter had signed an agreement that she will not contest any gift to charity through her father’s will.

The executors move for a summary judgment for this contest on the will to be invalid. The executor also stated that the daughter is not bound to gain anything with the success of the contest. Therefore, she does not have a stand to contest. They do not dispute that the bequest to the charity is more than half of the testator’s estate. What they point out is that in the will, it also states that “'I make no provision in this will, other than the provision in Article FIRST hereof, for my children, HELEN NORCROSS CEDER and ARTHUR D. NORCROSS, JR., not from any lack of affection, but because I have adequately provided for their welfare by inter vivos deeds of trust and otherwise.”

The law does not prevent any person from giving all his estate to charity, nor does it require for them to give any part of the estate to relatives. The law aims to prevent giving an undue portion to charity when relatives have a better claim. A New York Probate Lawyer also states that the law intends to alienate charities but to protect family members if they decide to raise this statute.

The words in the last will and testament will be the one to determine if the testator had really intended to disinherit a family member for the charity. The doctrine of Stare decisis, or basing decisions on previous rulings can take effect here. In this case, what the court did was to compare the words used in the testaments in the matter of Cairo. Both had stated that they do not want their relative to get more than what they have stated in their will. In this case though, the testator further states that it is not because of lack of affection, but because he has already provided them well while he was still alive. They do not want the charities to get nothing, in this matter though, it would seem that it allows the will to be defeated was what a Nassau County Probate Lawyer saw in this part of the will.

Mr. Norcross’ will is not showing disinheritance but s stating that he does have affection for his children, and he has given then sufficient benefits while he was still alive. In the matter of Cairo, what the will specifically state is that the testator wants to deprive the grandson of any property that will be left after all debts and fees have been paid from the estate. The intent to disinherit was conveyed. In this matter, the court determined that the testator did not intend to disinherit. They moved then that the motion for the summary dismissal be denied.

Continue reading "Arthur D. Norcross, executed a will that gives all his residuary estate to charity" »

This is a case regarding the Estate of Julia Eckart and the claims of her children regarding each of their shares in the inheritance. According to reports given to a New York Probate Lawyer, the children of the deceased filed a case against the last will and testament of their mother because of the insufficiency of their inherited amount against that of which will go to other people, entities and charities.

Unbelievably, according to a Manhattan Probate Lawyer, Julia Eckart left each of her children the amount of $50 each. According to her will, she also left no other cash or property to the rest of her surviving relatives. That is why the surviving children, Charlotte Anna Eckart, Frank Darmody and Frank Darmody filed a case in court that says that their mother made an excessive contribution to charity and that they were left with nothing except for the $50 each that were provided to them by her last will and testament. The rest of Julia Eckart’s estate, including her real and personal property have been assigned to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, which is a non-profit corporation in Brooklyn, New York.

Reports that reached the desk of a Nassau County Probate Lawyer said the court thoroughly examined the case according to the petition filed by the children. There was also a similar case before when a grandson was expressly disinherited on the will that was left by his grandfather. This was the Cairo case which was a long and hardly fought battle in court which now became a source of other similar cases as well. But according to the court, there should be two elements present in a case before it can be ruled as excessive charity. First, there should really be the intension to give too much of her estate to charity. Second, there is the intention to disinherit immediate family members like the spouse or children by the one executing the last will and testament.

In this case, it was proven that there was truly intent to give too much to charity because practically the Bible Watch Tower became Julia Eckart’s primary beneficiary. As for the second factor which is the intent to expressly disinherit her children, the court studied this angle carefully. Although there was a $50 inheritance, it is not the amount determined by law to which a person will already survive on a daily basis. That is why, after a long discussion and trial, the court was able to determine that the two factors were present to make this case an excessive charity.

The court will determine further the exact condition of the estate, its value and everything that will affect their ruling. They will do the proper accounting before determining the fair amount that will be given to Julia Eckart’s children as well as to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

Continue reading "Estate of Julia Eckart " »

Charles J. Tate, acting as the administrator of the estate of Nicholas C. Tate filed a case for gross negligence, malpractice, non-feasance, misfeasance, malfeasance and breach of fiduciary relationship against John J. McQuade as the guardian ad litem, or the court-appointed guardian of Nicholas’ interest with his son’s will. He is seeking money damages for money and also for punitive damages.

After Nicholas’ son died in March 31, 1971, the court-appointed Mr. McQuade as his guardian because of a disability and Mr. Tate was 90 years old at that time. As the administrator, Mr. Tate says that Mr. McQuade failed to contest the son’s will for excessive gift to charity. Whereby if successful would have increased Nicholas’ share in his son’s estate. The son left some personal property to his mother and the rest of the estate to the University of Detroit for educational purposes. This was dated and verified in September 16, 1971. The mother filed her objections to this will through her own counsel as an excessive gift.

The mother died while the probate for the son’s will was still on-going. Before she died, she had set up a trust for Nicholas her husband, and the rest was to be given to Mr. McQuade as the guardian ad litem. He was also named as the executor of the mother’s will. Though a lawyer, Mr. McQuade was not the one who drafted the mother’s will.

In September 20, 1972 there was a written agreement of settlement by the executor of the son’s estate, the executor of the mother’s estate Mr. McQuade and Mr. Tate as the administrator. This settled the objections to the son’s will and the mother’s will. Part of the settlement was that estate of the father will have a share in the settlement of the contest on the son’s will. They were going to give $25,000 to Nicholas’ estate.

Mr. Tate’s position was that Mr. McQuade did not take the necessary steps to make sure the father gets part of the son’s estate when it clearly showed that the will was to deprive the ward. A Manhattan Estate Lawyer mentioned that Mr. Tate further said that with Mr. McQuade being a beneficiary in the mother’s will and the guardian of Nicholas with the son’s will created a conflict of interest. This was not supported though because the mother had gotten advice from a separate counsel, and the will was drafted by the same lawyer who filed the contest on the son’s will. The father was the only beneficiary of the will. It also does not show that Mr. McQuade knew of what the mother had in mind for her last will and testament because it was only finalized three days before she died by a different lawyer.

Bronx Probate Lawyers said that the court determined from research that duties of the guardian ad litem do not include representation to contest an excessive charitable or educational gift in a probate proceeding of a will. The court also stated that there is no clear rule as to the right of contest when it comes to an incompetent or an infant. It is not specified that a guardian can make the personal choice to do so. It is laudable that a guardian asks the Surrogate court for assistance in the contest but not required. The filing of a contest of an excessive gift can also be done within six months from the issuance of the letters.

The case was dismissed, and the court found that there should be no action to be taken. This may seem like Nicholas got the bad end of a stick. A trustworthy New York Probate Lawyer could have made sure that his interest was covered in both wills. This happens a lot to people when they do not have counsel.

Continue reading "After Nicholas’ son died in March 31, 1971, the court-appointed Mr. McQuade " »

Ruth Bricker, Charles Ballon and the United States Trust Company submitted a counter-application regarding the preliminary letters sent to them for the last will and testament of Anna Lazarus. In the will submitted by Abraham Lautman to the court for probate, Mr. Lautman and United States Trust Company were named as executors. In their petition, Mr. Lautman’s eligibility to serve hold and oversee the assets of Ms. Lazarus is questioned. The company is agreeing to act alone and not together with Mr. Lautman.

From the information was obtained by a New York Probate Lawyer, United States Trust Company alleges a number of misconduct on Mr. Lautman’s part while acting as the decedent’s attorney-in-fact and co-conservator while she was alive. An attorney-in-fact is a person who is legally authorized to transact business-related transactions in behalf of another. A conservatorship is where a person is appointed by court to oversee and mange the financial affairs of a person who is considered as under a legal disability. It is also required that part of the financial accounting is submitted for review. It is said the Mr. Lautman did not submit his records to his co-conservators, including the documents and assets of Ms. Lazarus. He is also charged with preventing access to Ms. Lazarus’ apartment, drawing checks that are payable to himself or cash, and wrongful investment of funds owned by Ms. Lazarus in Great Britain.

The court if there is a good cause may reverse the instruction of a will to make a person an executor of the estate. In the preliminary letters issued, it is required that it is in its original form. This does not remove the court’s authority for a wise discretion in determining who will be part of the execution of the will. Nassau County Probate Lawyers said that leaving out a person named in a later will do not require a full hearing. It can be determined with affidavits as a basis or through a summary hearing. The court says that they prefer to avoid a contest within a contest. The legislature also wants an uncomplicated probate hearing. This is to save on cost and time for the court, and the parties concerned.

A commentary by the Chairman of the Committee on Simplification of New York Probate was cited. It says that nothing is really served by contesting preliminary letters. Appointing a person to take care of the estate immediately is to protect the estate that is the reason why preliminary letters are sent to people mentioned in the will and any addition.

In their decision, the court stated that due process asserts that Mr. Lautman as a named executor, have the chance to answer questions on his ineligibility. There is also no petition that has been submitted to question the validity of the last addition where Mr. Lautman was named. To avoid multiplicity, Brooklyn Probate Lawyers mentioned that the court will wait for any contest to the will. If just in case the will or the addition to the will is contested and the probate denied, which is known to happen, then the condition where Mr. Lautman is an executor is gone. If there is no contest on the will, counsel will notify the court and a hearing on eligibility will be set.

Continue reading " A conservator is a person appointed by court " »

Charles J. Brower died on April 15, 1954 leaving a last will and testament that were admitted to probate on April 30 of the same year. He was survived by his wife Helen Brower and his brother Willard T. Brower. After about 11 and 1/2 years, on October 18, 1965. Mrs. Bower filed an appeal under the Decedent Estate Law that contested the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraph of the will. Her claim was that in gives more than 50% of the testator’s estate to a religious association.

A New York Probate Lawyer says that Section 17 of the Decedent Estate Law says 'No person shall, devise or bequeath more than one-half part of his or her estate, after the payment of his or her debts, and such devise or bequest shall be valid to the extent of one-half, and no more. The validity of a devise or bequest for more than such one-half may be contested only by a surviving husband, wife, child, descendant or parent...’

Mr. Bower had made his wife, his brother and his friend and attorney David G. McCullough executors of his estate. He gave to his wife $2,500 plus any earnings of the residue remainder of his estate, and she can get part of the principal up to $500 in a calendar year in case of illness. Upon his wife’s death or if his wife precedes him, his brother gets $1,000. $1,000 to be given to New Hackensack Dutch Reformed Church in memory of my father, William Henry Brower and my mother, Jane Augusta Brower. To Reformed Dutch Church, he bequests $1,000 in memory of his wife. The rest of the residuary estate is given to New Hackensack Dutch Reformed Church.

The New Hackensack Dutch Reformed Church as the residuary inheritor, contested that the widow’s claim should be stopped. Though that Mrs. Bower had not waived her right to will contest regarding the excessive gift to the church explicitly. There is also no final settlement of the estate until the widow dies. The gift to the church is still undisputedly more than 50%, which is the limit.

It was the court’s opinion that Mrs. Bower had the right to contest the excessive gift to the church. She can also raise that issue in a construction or accounting proceeding. The decision though, according to Manhattan Probate Lawyers, must wait for the final settlement of the account when the court will already have all the information to make the determination. Even though the petition was filed at a late date, it is still valid as there is no limit for the time to file.

The widow’s death also does not terminate the contest for the validity of the bequest. The widow’s legal representative has the power to continue the proceedings in behalf of her estate. The contest begins when a preferred class, like the wife of descendant questions the validity of the will and since is personal then it will survive her death. With the widow filing her objection in a timely manner and the amount exceeding 50% of the estate after paying the debts and fees, Queens Probate Lawyers said the balance undistributed was given by the court to the heirs of the deceased Charles J. Bower as intestate property.

Continue reading "Charles J. Brower died on April 15" »

The decedent executed a will that left all her estate after taxes and fees to a Cemetery Association, a Fire Company, The American Cancer Society, a health association, and a society for the protection of homeless and dependent children. This constituted more than half of her estate.

If in case the will fails, a New York Probate Lawyer said that there will be twenty-nine first cousins who will be the beneficiaries. Three of these first cousins objected to the bequest to the charities. They cited law regarding the will contest for excessive bequests to charities. If their petition is granted any excess to half of the estate will be distributed to the cousins. The executors and the five charities appealed to dismiss the objection. The cousins objecting appeared before the court one with his separate counsel and the other two shared the same attorney.

To understand the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law regarding the excessive bequest to charity, one needs to determine first who can contest. The rule on contesting an excessive bequest to charity is that the person who is appealing against stands to gain pecuniary with a successful contest and that the bequest to charity is more than half of the estate. The law further supports it with the definition as to who these persons.

Before September 1930, it could have been any relative. It was reduced by a revision in the law to linear descendants, wife, husband or parent. There has already been previous cases where in even the brothers or sisters, niece or nephew of a testator were not considered as people who could contest the will under the excessive bequest to charity. From 1860 to 1930, it would have been a proper objection made by a first cousin. The new statute that took effect in September 1, 1967 for the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law was taken from a revision in the Decedent Estate Law. It was made so that both provision worked side by side. Again, this limited the people who can contest a will through the excessive bequest to charity to a surviving parent, husband or wife, child or descendant.

The problem of the objection is not based on the rule for excessive charity but with the definition as to who can contest a will. The descendant is defined as sharing a common ancestor, but instead of the testator, the cousins who are objecting want it to be changed to the grandparent of the testator. Manhattan Probate Lawyers said that the court has determined and emphasized that the descendant is one who has a lineal connection with the testator. It can also be those who were legally adopted and no one else.

The cousins also objected that they should still be allowed to object as an extension of the members because there is no surviving linear descendant. The courts say the extension of members still does not revert to the old law before 1930 but to people who are authorized to object like a representative. According to a Queens Probate Lawyer, the court found that the three cousins did not have the right to object to the donation to the charities.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Excessive Gifts to Charity" »

On December 20, 1952, the decedent died a childless widow. She left a supposed last will and testament that is dated April 29, 1929. This she tried to dispose of her estate and exercise a power of appointment granted to her by the will of her father. Another document dated September 13, 1929 was added and confirmed the April 29th will. According to a Staten Island Probate Lawyer, after a trial by jury both wills were denied probate. The reason given was that the testator lacked the capacity or competency to execute a will. She was not of sound mind. The Appellate Court also affirmed this decision.

The question now is if there was an error in the surrogate court to admit into evidence the statements of two witnesses, now deceased, in a prior lunacy proceeding. The Surrogate court relied on the Civil Practice Act that the statement of a deceased witness in a former trial or hearing may be used as evidence in a following hearing of the same subject-matter. The hearing for lunacy was presumptive. There was no other evidence so it was admissible but not conclusive.

This is the history obtained by a New York Probate Lawyer about the decedent . Her husband died in 1927, when she was 53 years old. Before long, she was showing erratic and distraught behavior. She was presenting abnormal habits and conduct, which included alcohol abuse. Her condition became so bad that between 1927 and 1929 she had been a voluntary patient at a mental hospital several times. Her condition still progressed and she was no longer able to take care of herself or her affairs. In September 24, 1929 she was admitted to a care facility as a voluntary patient because of this. She stayed there until she died 23 years later.

The testator’s brother started the lunacy proceedings in November, 1929. Two nephews, and the sons of the petitioner who are also people supporting the objection for the will were present in that hearing. They did not oppose the petition. A doctor who was previously consulting physician at the hospital testified as to the mental state of the decedent, which went undisputed.

The lunacy proceedings and the testamentary capacity hearing may not be different in the fundamentally in substance, but their purpose differs. Nassau County Probate Lawyers say that the incompetency in one instance like in managing one’s affairs does not necessary mean incompetency in making a valid last will and testament. The statute that asks for the subject-matter to be the same has not been satisfied. There was also no mention of Mrs. White’s condition before the proceedings for the determination of her lunacy. The court determined that being unable to facilitate ordinary affairs does not mean lack of testamentary capacity. There are the ones who are deemed wholly incapacitated, and they are also seen as lacking capacity to make a valid will. Even with this, there may be an exception as there is what is called a lucid interval. People who are also seen as mentally incapacitated may be unable to protect themselves because of their mental capacity, and that is it. In the same hearing, the testator nor her guardian were not able to present and question as to what will happen if there is a will contest.

The court has determined that the beneficiaries of the will should have a day in court. It should not be concluded by testimonies from a previous hearing that were uncontested. Another investigation to the testatrix capacity should be done as is governed by a different law with a different proceeding. The order was therefore reversed, and a new trial granted.

When you find yourself a beneficiary of a person considered as mentally incapacitated, you may automatically think that you are not eligible for any legacies from them.

Continue reading "The decedent died a childless widow" »

The petitioner filed an appeal with the Surrogate Court to require payment of a legacy. Ms. Schlanger was to receive 4% of the remaining estate after taxes and fees of the decedent. She claims that if the part, which is $10,000, is not paid to her account most likely she will not be able to enjoy any of it. She is saying she is old and needs the legacy. A New York Probate Lawyer mentioned that the petitioner said the other beneficiaries have received their legacies.

The answer given by the executor of decedent's estate is that the petitioner in not entitled to be paid because she violated the terrorem clause of the last will and testament. The will stated in the sixth paragraph of the will that if any of the beneficiaries or people mentioned in her will contests or does an act to contest the will, they will forfeit their right the bequest. It further states that if they testify against the probate of the will, then they will lose their right to the legacy. Their part will be, in effect, put back to the remaining interest and shared by the other recipients.

In the response, it is alleged that the petitioner violated in two ways. She tried to have the decedent declared incompetent when she was still alive. This was the first instance. The second instance is in the probate proceedings, where even if she did not appear to contest herself, she conspired with another to have the will disallowed. This, said a New York Will Contest Lawyer can be considered as a violation to the terrorem clause.

In the conclusion of the competency hearing of the decedent, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case. The claim was that the competency hearing was to discredit any will that will be executed by decedent during her lifetime. The court’s ruling on this was it is not in violation of the ‘no contest’ clause. It is because it was done while the testatrix was still alive, and the provisions of the will regarding the contest only applies once the will is already presented in probate.

As for the second reason wherein she is charged of being in cohorts with another person to have the will disallowed. The son of the petitioner, filed an objection to the will as a beneficiary of an earlier will. The executor said there should be a hearing that will allow them to present proof of conspiracy between the petitioner and her son in contesting the probate of the case.

In a letter submitted by the petitioner, she says that she said that she did not violate the terrorem clause of the will. She said she did not file objections, did not actively prosecute a contest and did not testify as a witness. For this case though, the court says that they will consider her as have acted in concert and conspiracy with her son. While the son was the main party, the court considered her as the real challenger of the will. In Page on Wills, the rule states that 'A beneficiary who procures and obtains another heir to institute proceedings to contest a will, forfeits his interest under such a condition.' The court is not assuming that the petitioner really did the said act as it can only be determined by a hearing. Manhattan Probate Lawyers commented that when the court is following the rule that they must consider the facts of the allegation as being done even if it is improbable. These allegations are deemed true. They set a hearing for the issues raised, and the petition for payment was denied.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Will Contest Matter" »

A proponent of a will, petitioned the court to charge the person objecting to the will personally. The probate decree allows this application to be made after the decree has been final.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that when a person files an objection to a last will and testament in good faith and with reasonable grounds, he is entitled to have his protest investigated without him bearing the cost. There was a previous case whereby the Appellate Court reversed a decision of a surrogate court for an objectant to be charged personally because there was some evidence that supported his objection to the lack of testamentary capacity and to negative bad faith. This was in the Coddington will.

Good faith is mainly reliant on whether there is a considerable basis for a contest of a will. The court cited some examples, like with the Kurowski’s will, where the court charge the cost of the contest personally to the objectant because she had a sworn data that validates the will she is contesting. The Roger’s estate was mentioned by Manhattan Probate Lawyers because the court assigned the cost to the person who contested because there was no evidence to support his claim. This is not the sole basis for imposing the cost to an unsuccessful contestant.

Let us go back to why there is a contest for this case. In a will dated April, 22, 1958, a decedent disinherited her daughter. The daughter then filed objections to the probate questioning the due execution and saying that there was fraud and undue influence. It also challenged the jurisdiction of the court. She claimed that at the time of her mother’s death, her mother was a principal resident of Florida and not New York. The court was able to determine that the decedent was a resident of New York and not Florida in July 1962. This was still appealed by the daughter but was still affirmed in January 1963.

In May of 1963, her objection with regard to fraud and undue influence was tried by the court with a jury. Queens Probate Lawyers said that the contest about the due execution was withdrawn when it reached trial. After three days in the trial, the court determined that there was no fact to be submitted to a jury so it ruled in favor of the proponent of the will. The daughter did not file an appeal. The evidence at trial proved that the will was valid. The disinheritance is a result of friction that started in 1956, where the decedent purchased $120,000 of stock from her daughter’s husband. The husband then questioned the sale saying that the decedent misrepresented the value of the stocks. The daughter’s husband insisted on attempting to interrogate the decedent, even if there is a sworn statement from a doctor that such examination would put her mother’s life in danger because of a heart ailment. By the time the woman died there was already great hostility between her, and her daughter whom she disinherited.

The court then found that the will contest was filed in bad faith. It is also confirmed that the testatrix intended for the daughter to be disinherited, and it contains stipulations to that effect. With antagonism between them, the daughter couldn’t have logically expected her mother to make any provision for her. There was no evidence to support her claims and objections. The evidence provided pointed that the daughter just wanted to delay the probate with a contest. The court awarded the costs to the proponent less $158 for the transcript that will be charged to the daughter personally.

Continue reading "The probate decree allows this application to be made after the decree has been final." »

It is a sad occurrence when children are orphaned by both parents in a very short span of time. This is what happened when a modern painter of high reputation, died on February 25, 1970 followed by his wife on August 26, 1970. They left two children. The daughter was already of age and the son Christopher was still a minor. Before the mother died, she already gave the court her petition to contest the will as the children’s guardian saying the bequest to the charitable institution was more than one-half of the estate.

The term of the will, from what a Nassau County Estate Administration Lawyer found was that the wife gets $250,000 plus their house and all its contents. Five of his paintings are to be given to the Tate Gallery, London. The remaining part of his estate is bequeathed to an art foundation, a non-profit organization. It contained additional stipulation where if his wife dies, or they subsequently die, their children get $250,000 and the house in New York, including all its contents in equal shares.

The executors still followed through with the proceedings to determine if the claim for the will contest is valid. The daughter appeared with her lawyer and the son with his guardian. The court has found out the paintings of the testator is valued at several millions of dollars. There is another court hearing in which the contract executed for one-eighth of the decedents works was valued at $1,800,000 was still being contested as not enough. The court has said it is definitely more than half of the residuary estate of the testator that was assigned to charity. A Nassau County Estate Litigation Lawyer said the court gave out is a decision in favor of the children on July 13, 1970.

In the law, the spouse, children, parents, even grandchildren of a decedent can contest a will if the bequest to charity is more than one-half of the residuary estate, granted that they will be gaining financially with a successful contest. A New York Probate Lawyer says this is not an assurance though, because if the will expressly state that the testator wants to disinherit his children, even if they are infants then they will be disinherited. The question before was why when a person is alive, they are not allowed to neglect their children but when they are dead, they can. This was addressed by another rule through the Family Maintenance Act were in the Surrogate Court will have the power to enforce reasonable provisional support in all solvent decedent’s estate. This means that the children who have lost their parents will not automatically be public charges. The child will be able to support himself until he reaches the age of maturity or can support himself, whichever comes first. In this case, it means that the court will take equitable portions from each gift to support the minor child. The remainder of the will upon the child reaching legal age or when he can already support himself will be distributed according to the will.

Continue reading "It is a sad occurrence when children are orphaned by both parents " »

In the matter of a decedent's estate, his daughter had filed a motion for the court to wait on admission of a decision regarding the probate of the last will and testament. She also asked for a time extension to file objections and time to be able to examine the proponent and for an interpretation of the effect of the terrorem clause or no-contest clause that is included in the will.

On the return day of the hearing for the original matter, the daughter showed and the proponent was directed to change the petition because the adoptive daughter of the decedent's predeceased son was not mentioned. More data that a New York Probate Lawyer obtained was the daughter was not served with the supplemental citation and is claiming she only received a day’s notice that a decree on the admission of the will to probate is going to be presented to the court. The daughter got an immediate order to show cause to wait in making a decision on the decree.

The daughter had checked witnesses who are verifying the proposed will and now wants to examine the proponent of the will. Her allegation was that the son of the testator, who is also an attorney at law, acted as the decedent’s attorney, and the will being executed in his office. Further, she is claiming that the provisions of the will were altered to assign other benefits to the proponent and his family at her expense. Suffolk County Probate Lawyers cited that the daughter was as well saying that her father was 80 years old at the execution of the will and was relying on other for his physical needs.

The last will and testament of the decedent say that if anyone opposes the probate of his will, that person and any participant will rescind his right to any bequest. The daughter asked that court that before they grant or deny her request for the examination of the proponent, they first interpret this part of the will. NY Probate Lawyers said that the court will not be able to construe any part of the will before it is in probate. It can however, check if the examination of the proponent is part of the public policy of declaration. This means that the action that will be done is does not tantamount to a breach of the terrorem clause.

In this case, the court said it is their practice that if the person who drafted the will or a member of his firm and/or his family will receive a part of the estate in probate of a proposed will, he is required to submit an affidavit explaining that the will was free and voluntary made. He needs to explain in the same affidavit why he or his family is receiving a special treatment under the will. If it is a member of his firm who drew up the will then he will need to explain if he had any connection the actual making of the will and the person who actually made it should have his own affidavit saying that he acted in behalf of the decedent and not the proponent.

The affidavits will be carefully scrutinized by the court. It will not be examined for as long as there are unexplained suspicious circumstances. In this case, the proponent submitted applications that showed he will be receiving more of the will goes into intestacy or going without a valid will. It appeared, however, that the daughter of the proponent, the granddaughter of the decedent will receive a substantial amount that is more than what she will receive in intestacy as she is not considered as an heir to the estate. The court then granted the request of the daughter to examine the proponent with regard to any matter regarding the will.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Will Contest Proceeding" »