New York Probate and Estate Administration Blog

According to a New York Estate Lawyer, this is a case about the estate of Bertha Weil Fitzgerald. Reports that reached his office said that the estate was left to a number of charitable institutions and couple of churches according to her will. These charities and churches are Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York, including Manhattan and Staten Island, National Society for Prevention of Blindness, Inc., The Fresh Air Fund, First National City Bank as Committee of the Property of Paul S. Ames, Jr., Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Archbishopric of New York and for Terence Cardinal Cooke, The Salvation Army, Heart Fund, American Cancer Society Inc., and the New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center.

According to the Will that was executed in 1970, all of these charities and churches shall receive each an amount of $50,000. The Fitzgerald Estate was valued at $2 million. The remainder of the estate shall be given to the Archbishopric of New York. However, Bertha Weil Fitzgerald had a 41 year old son who was, according to sources told a New York Probate attorney, legally entitled to the estate of his deceased mother. It was also said on the Will that Bertha did not intend to leave any amount r any part of her estate to her son, who was also invalid and incompetent. The son according to reports had been institutionalized since childhood and therefore was under no condition to care for himself much less to her mother’s estate. It was also noted that the grandmother, Bertha’s mother already left half a million dollars to her grandson when she passed away some years back.

This case was filed by the trust company of Bertha’s son claiming that the son, under their representation did not receive any notice about the Will of Bertha. They claim that the son was not able to file an objection to his mother’s last will and testament and that it was right to do so. It was also noted that by law an incompetent spouse or in this case a son can file for an objection if he or she was left with a sum leas than or not equal to the sum that were left to other beneficiaries in this churches and charitable institutions. It is also what is known as a case of excessive or too much charity.

Also, the New York Will Contest lawyer was also informed that the legal counsels of the charities and churches claimed that the objection of the son was not file in time and that it was already too late to file such an objection in court. It was however traced that the son was declared incompetent in 1971 a year after the Will was executed.

Continue reading " The Fitzgerald Estate was valued at $2 million " »

This is a case file by William Power Maloney against the estate of E. Townsend Irvin and against other people including the widow and other beneficiaries of the estate. It was determined in a report sent to a New York Estate Litigation Lawyer that Maloney served as counsel of lawyer for one of the beneficiaries, J. Gordon Douglas, who was also later named as executor of the estate. Much was discussed about this case because there were also other people involved in the estate like the Woodbury family.

Maloney was asking for the settlement of his legal fees because of the services he rendered to his client, J. Gordon Douglas. He was asking the court grants his petition and that he be paid for his services and that the payment should come from the Irvin estate. At that time, Maloney was asking to be paid the sum of $16,000. It was questioned by the court and by the other beneficiaries why such an amount be paid to him from the Irvin estate when in fact, according to them Maloney did not perform or rendered any services for the deceased or his estate.

It was also reported to a New York Estate lawyer that because of the longstanding arguments of the widow and the Woodbury family along with J. Gordon Douglas, the proceedings regarding the estate has taken so long already. Douglas, according to Maloney approached him and said that unless there is a compromised agreement between the widow and the Woodbury family, the trial could probably take longer than necessary. Maloney said that he worked with the disputing parties to come up with a settlement. According to him, the sum of $25,000 was agreed upon by the disputing parties that finally ended their objections and disputes. But it unknown to both parties that Maloney was working for them and the estate. They were under that impression that Maloney represented Douglas who was at that time was not yet named as executor of the estate.

There were a lot of discussion and confusion to the testament of Maloney that he was a major part of the settlement entered into by the opposing parties. It was then finally ruled that only the sum of $1500 should be paid to him as legal counsel of Douglas who became executor of the estate and not the $16,000 he was originally asking. This is in the courts argument that he, Maloney, cannot ask for that amount from the estate because it was not determined or established that he indeed worked or rendered services for the estate.

Maloney later told the court that aside from that, he claimed that the father of his clients also approached him with claims that the deceased owed him a considerable amount of money as well. Maloney was asked by the father of his client to review huge files of documents as proof of his claim. Maloney claimed that he was able to “pacify” the older Douglas not to take the matter into court. He said that because of that which he considered as services rendered for the estate, he was charging $10,000 as legal fees. This was also denied. In Brooklyn and The Bronx fees are established in a similar manner.

Continue reading " This is a case file by William Power Maloney " »

With an Estate amounting to almost two million dollars, E. Louise Grupp died in September 25, 1992. The will that was given for probate was only dated two weeks before Mr. Grupp died. The will was dated September 11, 1992. The executors who wear named in the will were Joan E. Maloney, Esq., and Eleanor G. Dunn. There was an older will filed with the court that was dated July 9, 1992. Interested parties had examined the witnesses to the will.
The will dated September 11, 1992 sets up the $300,000 trust for Ms. Nitterauer and places another $150,000 in trust for her sons. Aside from that she gets personal effects and the testator’s house. From what a New York Estate Lawyer gathered, the remaining part of the estate of the deceased goes to the Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company as trustee for the Buffalo Foundation to be held as a perpetual charitable fund in memory of Mrs. Grupp and her late husband. Nine charities are assigned as income beneficiaries of fund assets in various percentages totaling 95% of net income, with the recipients of the remaining 5% to be selected by the Foundation. If the foundation fails to qualify as a charity or any of the other named organizations then the trustee will select from qualifying charities.
A terrorem clause was also in this will. That if anyone contests the probate or any part of the will, their interest will be forfeited, and it will be treated like that person died before the testator.
The court had said that they have to determine if that will dated September 11 will be treated as the will for Mrs. Grupp. According to a New York Probate Lawyer, it is the Surrogate court that determines the validity of a will. The will is not admitted if there is the lack of capacity, lack of due execution or undue influence. The courts typically refuse to address the ‘no contest’ clause before the probate. The court will interview the will witnesses and the lawyer. The Surrogate Court determined that is the will for Mrs. Grupp.
The terrorem clause was not very clear. This gives the petitioner an additional risk. It does not say specifically if all the people in the will be disinherited or only the person who opposed the will. New York Estate Administration Lawyers in The Bronx and Staten Island said that the court had good and compelling reason to deviate from the Davis rule. There were several differences with the Davies case. There were also concerns that the most-recent will is totally different from the planning goals of the testatrix who was to save on estate taxes to increase the legacies to certain individuals. The court was moving towards construction. In this way, they can ascertain the intent of the testator as to his will. It must be in the will itself.
Mrs. Grupp had intended for the charities to benefit as it is also showing on the prior will. As with the ‘no contest’ clause, they determined that if the deceased really wanted for all parties to be deprived, then she would have added words to that effect. The court is concerned about if Mrs. Grupp wanted even the charities to forfeit if the will is questioned. The court determined that the ‘no contest’ clause will not include the charities if in case the will was questioned as in previous will it has always been part and always first.

Continue reading " E. Louise Grupp died in September 25, 1992. " »

Barbara Fairbairn, primary beneficiary and second wife of Howard Fairbairn was named primary executor of all his estates in June 1997. But according to New York Will Contest lawyer, Howard’s son, Richard Fairbairn by previous marriage filed an objection on the last will and testament of his father claiming Barbara exercised excessive and unlawful influence on his father and that the Will was executed with fraud. He filed an objection to his father’s will because he believed that Barbara was not the rightful person to execute or manage his father’s properties and other cash and assets. Unfortunately no such evidence was found by the court and Barbara was still and remained to be the sole executor of Howard Fairbairn’s will.

However, Barbara went on and continued filing a case against Howard’s daughter, Carolyn Desilva. Barbara claimed that Carolyn sent two letters Richard Fairbairn’s attorney and that both letters contained false accusations about her personality as well as her family’s reputation. The said letters were also sent to court as part of the evidence against Carolyn. According to reports, Barbara claimed that Carolyn was objecting to Barbara’s inheritance and the letters were her way to contest her father’s will. It was noted that Barbara had already filed a previous case against Carolyn to remove her from participating in her father’s estate. The court ruled in favour of Carolyn saying that there was no sufficient evidence or any cause to bar Carolyn from such participation. That is why Barbara again filed another case, still pursuing to remove Carolyn from her father’s will and testament. Barbara further claimed that Carolyn and Richard conspired against her to remove her from being the executor of their father’s estate. However, Barbara’s only evidence was the letters Carolyn wrote and sent to Richard’s attorney.

Carolyn on the other hand said that she only wrote those letters because she was asked by Richard Fairbairn’s attorney for some background information on Barbara and that those letters were never meant to hurt anybody or discredit anybody from anything. The court also said that it was also true that Carolyn was not properly informed that her personal letters were going to be admitted as evidence against her in the court of law. A New York Estate Administration lawyer was also informed that Carolyn even signed a waiver and consent that her father’s will was valid and that Barbara’s title as primary executor or beneficiary of his estate of properties were all executed legally and lawfully. These documents signed by Carolyn with regards to her father’s estate and also with regards to her father’s chosen executor or beneficiary only made Carolyn’s defence stronger, strong enough to dismiss Barbara’s appeal to remove her from her father father’s last will. Cases like this are handled in a similar way in Queens and Westchester County.

Continue reading " Barbara Fairbairn, primary beneficiary " »

Edward Rogowsky died in March of 2001 leaving behind his partner, Peter McGarry and two children, Joshua D. Rogowsky and Mark L. Rogowsky. Reports reached New York probate lawyer that Rogowsky executed his last will and testament leaving behind a chain of residential premises or apartments at Glen Road Southold, New York. According to further reports, Rogowsky made McGarry the sole beneficiary of the residential premises as well as all his other assets except for $20,000 worth of property to his two nephews.

Sources said that on the same year, 2001, the Kings County court, seeing everything has been done in a legal and proper order, granted all rights to McGarry according to Rogowsky’s last will and testament. Unfortunately, Rogowsky’s two sons filed a case against McGarry on charges of fraud and other charges that are in connection with their father’s estate.

Apparently, Rogowsky’s sons were already going to contest their father’s will and testament in 2001 but McGarry made a promise that he will share whatever profit he will receive from the apartments in Southold, New York. But according to accounts that reached the desk of a judge no such promise was honoured by McGarry. He in fact, sold the apartments and the house in Southold in 2006 and kept all the cash for himself. Rogowsky’s sons also claimed that McGarry already found a new partner in life, forgetting all about their father and the promise he made to them about equally sharing the profits of their father’s estate. It was also discussed during the trial that when Rogowsky was still alive, he repeatedly told his sons, in front of McGarry that he meant to transfer ownership of the apartments and house to his sons. Further, McGarry allegedly promised that he will respect Rogowsky’s intention of giving the properties to his sons. Apparently that was what made McGarry promise the Rogowsky brothers that he will equally share all profits to all three of them. Sadly, no such thing happened and McGarry kept it all to himself according to the charges. Rogowsky’s sons’ actions to file a case against McGarry are based on the McGarry’s promise to fulfil the last wishes of their father before he died even though it was not included in Rogowsky’s will and testament. Courts in The Bronx and Staten Island are watching this case closely.

On the side of McGarry, New York Estate Administration attorney mentioned that his argument is based on Rogowsky’s last will. Also he claimed that there was no written contract between him and Rogowsky’s sons and that Rogowsky’s will was final and executory, meaning it was done in accordance with the existing laws at the time Rogowsky wrote his will and testament.

Finally, after a long trial about Rogowsky’s estate, the court ruled in favour of McGarry and the case that was filed by Rogowsky’s sons was dismissed. The court maintains that the promise made by McGarry to Rogowsky’s sons was not enough to require McGarry to do something about it.

Continue reading " Rogowsky made McGarry the sole beneficiary of the residential premises " »

On March 12, 1992, Louis Rosen died in a mental facility in California, allegedly leaving behind his entire estate to Warren Silverman as his primary beneficiary. According to reports that reached New York Contest Will lawyer, the last will that was left by Rosen was written during the time when he was already determined to be mentally ill. This means that the Will naming Warren to be the primary beneficiary of Rosen’s estate is invalid according to existing laws. Also, according to the evidences presented at court by the other surviving relatives of Rosen, Warren and Warren’s mother Miriam exerted excessive influence to the deceased making them the only people who had access to Rosen’s financial resources four years before he died.

Four years before Rosen died, Miriam already moved into Rosen’s apartment and took care of everything for him, including his financial affairs. This was confirmed by Rosen’s accountant because he claimed he personally saw Miriam “bossing” Rosen around. He also claimed that Miriam had access and even had control over Rosen’s bank account including his personal checks. This is one of the reasons why Rosen’s other relatives have filed a case against Warren saying that the only reason why Rosen had named him primary executor and beneficiary of all his estate was because of the influence of his mother Miriam over Rosen at the time Rosen was already mentally unstable.

The court also believed, upon seeing the evidences presented that Rosen was indeed under no mental condition to knowingly decide for himself anymore. Reports that reached a New York Estate Attorney that there are several accounts when Rosen was found lost and only in his underwear by the local police. The last time they were able to find him was in 1990 where he was taken to a nearby hospital for treatments. Friends and relatives also noticed the changes in Rosen’s behaviour, saying he was already incapable to keeping his personal hygiene. It was actually during this time when Miriam moved in and took care of everything for Rosen. It was also during this time, according to New York Estate lawyer when Rosen made deposits, supposedly gifts to Miriam’s children amounting to almost $10,000 each. After that, he allegedly made a transfer of a staggering $1.5 million to Warren and Miriam. These supposedly cash gifts and other properties left by Rosen to Warren are what the other relatives of Rosen are now objecting to.

In 1991, Rosen was diagnosed with advanced dementia, rendering him mentally invalid to make sound decision for himself. This also established that back in 1988, he was also in no mental health condition to determine whether his actions were right or wrong. It was Miriam who was there with him thereby establishing that she can and had already used her influence on him. He was already incapable to sound decision and judgement.

Warren however objected to these accusations saying the cash “gifts” were valid and legal according to existing laws. The trial lasted for nine days with dozens of evidences presented in favour of Warren as well as the relatives who filed for complaint. After careful evaluation of all evidences presented the court denied the motion to summary judgement in favour of Warren. Courts in Nassau and Suffolk Counties have been watching this case.

Continue reading " Warren to be the primary beneficiary of Rosen’s estate " »

In February 14, 1980, the will of Sally Lippner, deceased, was contested by her daughter Suzanne H. Epstein. Ms. Lippner died in January 11, 1980, and the will questioned is dated December 1, 1979. In Ms. Lippner’s last will and testament, she bequeathed all her property to five charities. There is a gift of Israeli bonds to the State of Israel. The will also state that her daughter Ms. Epstein receives no part of her estate as she had adequately provided for her in her lifetime.
The will further specify that in case that the will fail and becomes useless all the property will go to her trustees. In conformance to the trust agreement that she has set up while she was alive. The inter vivos trust was also set on the same date of the will. The paperwork says that the trust will be funded if in any case that the gift, devise or legacy made under the last will and testament made by Ms. Lippner will be ineffective. The trustees on the document are the same people named as executors of her will. Meaning, the trustees will give the income from the fund to the same charities she has named in her will, says a New York Estate Administration Lawyer. After five years, the charities then will receive the principal divided equally between them.
Ms. Lippner’s will included a “no contest” clause. A New York Probate Lawyer also said, from the records, it specifically stated that any person who will contest the will, it does not matter what reason will lose the right to any part of the estate which, would have been theirs. Aside from these papers documenting litigation between the Ms. Lippner and her daughter, Ms. Epstein, was attached. It had the history of the litigation to show that Ms. Epstein, although the only descendant was really intended to be excluded from the estate distribution.
Ms. Epstein filed four final objections to probate. The first one was the failure of due execution, second was forgery, third was the lack of testamentary capacity and the last one was fraud and undue influence. Failure of due execution, according to a New York Estate Lawyer, is the will having all the requirements of the law like having two witness signatures. The excessive nature of the will was not included because the courts decided that if the will fail by any other reason, then, the disposition to the charitable institutions will go with it.
The executor asserted that Ms. Epstein is not in the position to contest the will. This he states that is because either way she will not get anything. If the will take effect, she gets nothing. If the will fail, she still gets nothing.
What a New York Probate Lawyer got from the court’s review was that the ‘no contest’ clause does not affect the daughter’s right to contest. Her claim is to discredit the whole will. If the will become ineffective because of her reasons then the ‘no contest’ clause will also be worthless. The part of the will that says that her daughter is to receive nothing from her will is for the estate itself, does not affect her right for the probate. If Ms. Epstein was only arguing the part of the will for excessive charitable gift then she would most probably be denied the case, but what she is disagreeing with was the will as a whole. The rule, as it is in New York City and Queens, that if the person who is contesting will receive a monetary benefit invalidates the contest only applies if the will is attacked in part. The inter vivos trust need not be discussed as it is a separate agreement. For these reasons, the appeal for summary judgment to dismiss the objections to the probate was denied.

Continue reading " There is a gift of Israeli bonds to the State of Israel " »

Nobody enjoys paying taxes, but they are something that everyone will have to pay. There are plenty of different taxes, and all of them are disliked by everyone. It is the role of the financial officer to try and determine how these taxes will affect the budget of the state. In 2012 there is an estimated $322 million budget deficit. To counter this there are proposed budget cuts and tax hikes. The estate tax could help the state to become much more financially stable.
The revenue earned from state taxes is thought to be $35 million in 2011explains a New York City Estate Planning lawyer. The same estimated amount is predicted through years 2012 and 2014. However, whether these predictions are accurate or not will remain to be seen. The exact number of deaths will not be known, nr will their wealth and circumstances.
It might not be the nicest thing to think about, but if some of the wealthiest residents of the district were to die, then it would be beneficial for the budget.
Early this year a very wealthy resident passed away. The single tax payment from that estate was $8 million which meant the annual contributions from estate tax so far were $29 million. This is just $6 million less than the estimate, and there are still quite a few months left in the year mentions the New York City Probate Lawyer.
It simply isn’t possible for anyone to say how much money will be generated through the estate tax system. The tax collections will vary significantly depending on a number of circumstances. Sometimes there are very large collections, and in other months there might be very small collections.
Even though they have almost reached their target for the year, it’s not impossible for the district to fail to reach its target.
In 2002 the district and places like Brooklyn and Queens benefited from a number of large estate tax collections. This allowed the district to collect over$124 million.
There are arguments that instead of relying on death of the super wealthy so much, we should be increasing the income tax paid by these people.

Continue reading " Estate Tax in DC " »

Just a year ago the Connecticut probate courts were near being bankrupt. However, after the courts have been restructured the system is much more effective explains a New York Estate Planning Lawyer. The states probate system has its roots in the colonial era, but after the number of courts being halved, it now works better.
The NY Estate Planning Lawyer attended the Connecticut Probate Assembly’s Annual Meeting. It was explained that the courts have managed to save $1.2 million. This is much better than when they were almost bankrupt.
The court expects to be able to generate a $2 to $3 million surplus at the end of the 2012 financial year.
This improved financial position has happened just at the right time indicated a NY Probate Lawyer. There have already been cuts for the judicial branch budget. It’s expected that there will be more cuts in the future.
All of the elected judges celebrated the success that they have had this year at the annual conference. They also looked over some of the challenges that they will still need to resolve in the coming year.
Some of the issues raised included the president who said that he wanted to make it easier for parents to tackle addiction and mental health problems in children. He also wants to protect the children from other people who might prey on their naivety.
The members of the court reminded one another that they have a responsibility towards all the people that they represent. All the people that come before the court are important and must be treated correctly.
The Probate Court administrator explained that over two years, the court has managed to turn its fortunes around. It has improved distressing finances and even successfully navigated around some new legislation which might have put an end to the ancient probate system which started in 1666.
The president would like to introduce further training over the next year, and also update the practice book.
The judges and lawmakers have been praised for working together with one another to help reduce the number of courts, cut costs, and make the system profitable. They will try to emulate this in New York City and Long Island.

Continue reading " Connecticut Probate Court System nears Surplus " »

At the end of 2010 congress revamped the estate tax and generation skipping tax legislation. This saw all of the different types of death related taxes being filed with the highest rate of 35%.
At the moment the exemption rates are very generous and this is thought to continue throughout 2012. However, in 2013 it’s likely that things will be changed. That’s why many New York Probate Lawyers are starting to tell their clients about the possibility of gifting now.
The portability of the gift tax exemption means that a married couple actually has double the amount of exemption. The $5 million lifetime gift tax exemption for individuals is $10 million for a married couple. In 2010 the gift exemption was only $1 million.
So many people are asking their Lawyer whether they should start giving away as many of their possessions to their children before 2013 and the exemptions are reduced. This would serve to reduce the inheritance taxes explains the New York Probate Lawyer.
These lifetime gifts will help to reduce the size of your estate which will in turn mean that less tax will need to be paid. They will also earn interest at their capital gains tax rate which could be beneficial.
If you do want to use the portability of these exemptions then you will need to file an estate tax return. This is important even if there is no tax owing. This will also serve to notify the IRS that you will transfer the gift tax exemption to the surviving spouse.
The estate tax return needs to be submitted 9 months after the death, although it may be possible to extend it by six months in some circumstances.
The savings could be very high if you start gifting assets now. However, the problem is that there’s no indication what will actually happen in 2013 in sites like Suffolk and Westchester Counties. Congress could continue with the $5 million individual exemption into 2013, nothing is sure. However, if congress reverts back to $1 million lifetime gifting limits then you would have saved a lot of money.

Continue reading " Estate Planning in 2011 " »