New York Probate and Estate Administration Blog

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 Brooklyn Probate Lawyers 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. A Bronx Probate Lawyers 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.

The last will and testament may be ambiguous at times, and sometimes you have questions which one will apply. Stephen Bilkis and Associates can assist you in the determination and give you expert legal advice. They will go through the step by step probate with you to make sure you are getting what should be for you. They will make sure you understand and see to it that what should be given to you is given to you.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, we have the best legal team anywhere in New York or Long Island. We know it is hard to get what is due to you when other people do not have your best interest at heart, we do. To get a free consultation call us at 1-800 NY - NY- LAW.

In the handwritten will of Mabel Alexander dated March 18, 1952, she denied that she is the mother of Marjorie Alexander and Bernard Alexander. A New York Probate Lawyer said that she stated that even though Marjorie and Bernard were raised as her children and were part of her family, they were not hers. She stated that she got a legal separation from her husband Benjamin Alexander, and she was just providing his room and board. She also included a statement that they did not live as man and wife after August 1950 when they got the decree of separation.

Marjorie, Bernard and Benjamin filed an objection against the submitted last will and testament. Soon after Benjamin died, and the executor of his will replaced him as the contestant. As the law states, since the right to contest is a property right, it survives the death of the person contesting. A Staten Island Probate Lawyer said the court ordered a trial for the disputed paternity of Marjorie and Bernard, and the possibility that Benjamin may also have an interest in the will of Mabel. In this trial, the only issue is to be addressed is whether Marjorie and Bernard are children of the decedent and not if they are legitimate or illegitimate.

Mabel was married three times. The first was ended by a divorce in 1907. The second marriage to Albert Norwalk was ended when Mabel divorced him in 1922. He claims to have fathered Marjorie. The last was to Benjamin Alexander, who asserts paternity to Bernard Alexander. Mabel got a decree of separation for this marriage.

A number of Mabel’s friends testified that she confided in them that she is not able to bear children, and the Marjorie and Bernard were not hers. They also said she did not seem to be pregnant before Bernard appeared. One of the witnesses said that her husband was entrusted Bernard’s adoption papers, but they were unable to find it. These two witnesses though, are named in the will. If the contest fails, they will benefit from it so a Suffolk County Probate Lawyer said that the court found them to be ineffective witnesses. Their testimonies are not considered. The court considers this preliminary trial as part of the probate so whoever is deemed as incompetent to witness in this is also not going to be part of the probate witnesses.

There was also the testimony of Albert Norwalk, who has testified convincingly that he is Marjorie’s father. He said he was present when she was born in Buffalo that he saw Marjorie being held by her mother. He mentioned he spoke to the medical staff that handled her case and paid the hospital expenses. He also testified that he and Mabel returned to their home with their child and her nurse.

Mabel lived and had her business at Noyack, Long Island for many years. Her neighbors there and people doing business there testified that she had consistently referred to Marjorie and Bernard as her children. In school and census records, she had always been registered as their mother. When she divorced Albert Norwalk, she called Marjorie as the daughter of Albert Norwalk and herself. In her life insurance application in 1912, she said she had one child. Mabel showed and acted like a mother to the children. A New York Probate Lawyer got information that she showed that she loved them and cherished them.

Evidence had shown that the rift between her and the children started when the children tried to get the amount left by John Irwin, Mabel’s father to her. Mabel and Benjamin, to get the funds themselves instead of to children, filed affidavit’s that Marjorie and Bernard were not their children but only got them as babies. In this action by Mr. Irwin, a New York Estate Lawyer says, showed he considered Marjorie and Bernard as his grandchildren.

The court determined Marjorie to have been born in 1910 and was twelve years old when Benjamin married Mabel. She lived with her mother before the marriage and after the marriage. The affidavits were obviously false. On his deathbed, Benjamin tried to correct what he had done with regard to the affidavits filed. He submitted a recanting affidavit Niagara County Surrogate's court where they filed, they filed the nebulous sworn statement. This is believed to be the truth. The lawyer who drafted the official statement of Benjamin was hesitant to do so because it meant Benjamin was waving his right to his wife’s estate. The court determined that with all the evidence provided that Marjorie and Benjamin are the children of Mabel. She is their natural mother. Benjamin Alexander was deemed as having no right to contest the will as his executor, because he already has an interested party in the probate.

This may seem like fiction, but this situation happens in real life. There are some people who, even in their last will and testament show spite. At these instances, you will really need a Probate Lawyer who is very thorough in proving your case.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates have legal counsel who are very meticulous with the evidence in their cases. If you walk in any of our offices in New York, you will have people ready to assist you with any case in New York or Long Island. You can also contact us online or through 1-800 NY - NY- LAW.

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. From what a New York Probate Lawyer got from their claim, they are saying that the last three pages of the will which had the signature were authentic, and the first four pages were substituted.

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 a power 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. Staten Island Probate Lawyers 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.
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.

We often meet challenges when the will are in our favor and a party feels like they did not get their due. Suffolk County Probate Lawyers are the ones that make sure that what is in the will are the ones applied, and we get what we should have. They go through the proceedings to make sure your side is well represented.

In dealing with will contests, Stephen Bilkis & Associates have skilled counsel, who take everything to heart when it comes to their client's cases. They make sure they check and double check on the letters of the law to protect your side, and you get your part of the estate. They give free consultations when you call them at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

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 to file a will contest 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. A New York Probate Lawyer said that 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, from what a Manhattan Probate Lawyer got. 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.

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.

Queens 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. This happens a lot to people when they do not have counsel.

For a quality legal counsel who can make sure the proper contest is done, and that will put your interest first you have Stephen Bilkis & Associates. They make sure that once the probate starts you are already in a good position to prevent problems in the future. They give out free consultations when you call 1-800 NY - NY- LAW. Anywhere you are in New York or Long Island, they will assist you.

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 a will contest. 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. Queens Probate Lawyers say 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 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.

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, according to Manhattan Probate Lawyers.

Sometimes when wills are not interpreted properly, it may hurt the people who are left, and they may be without what should have been for them. To see to it that you get your fair share, you would need a first-rate legal counsel. They will make sure that the will is interpreted the best way that will be beneficial to everyone, especially you.

This is where Stephen Bilkis & Associates have Probate Lawyers come in. They are there in the front lines when your interest is the one in line. Before an issue even arises they would already plan on it for you. You can get a free consultation with them at 1-800 NY - NY- LAW. They handle cases from anywhere in New York or Long Island.

Alexander Singer filed an appeal with the court with regard to him violating the terrorem clauses of his father’s will. When his father, Rabbi Joseph Singer, died, his last will and testament was dated April 15, 2003. The will put his daughter, Vivian Singer, as the executor of the will. With a trust agreement bulk of his personal property, his home in Brooklyn and $200,000 was to be given to his daughter. The will stated that the bequest was for his daughter’s unusual dedication, and he realizes that his daughter gave her life to take care of him. To his son, he gives $15,000 and the remainder of the estate will be divided between his son and his daughter equally.

Rabbi Singer’s will have two terrorem clauses. The first, as a New York Probate Lawyer said is like any standard ‘no contest’ clause. "If any beneficiary shall, in any manner, directly or indirectly, contest, object to or oppose, or attempt to contest, object to or oppose, the probate of or validity of this Will or the revocable trust agreement created by me, or any part of my estate plan or any gifts made by me, or any of the provisions of this Will or of the revocable trust agreement created by me, in any court or commence or prosecute any legal proceeding of any kind in any court to set aside this Will or the revocable trust agreement created by me or any part of my estate plan or any gifts made by me, then in that event, such beneficiary, and all of such beneficiary's issue, shall forfeit and cease to have any right or interest whatsoever under this Will or under the revocable trust agreement created by me, or in any portion of my estate, and, in such event, I hereby direct that my estate and the trust estate under such revocable trust agreement shall be disposed of in all respects as if such beneficiary had predeceased me without issue."

The second one was specifically for his son Alexander. This condition expressly states that his son should not contest any part of the will, the trust agreement, any of the estate plans and gifts made by Rabbi Singer. It further says that his son should not take his daughter, Vivian, to a Bet Din. A Bet Din according to a Queens Probate Lawyers is a religious court. If his son resorts to any of these proceedings, he will lose his right to any part of the estate, either through the will or the revocable trust agreement.

March 25, 2004, Vivian submitted the will for probate. The following day Alexander filed a notice of discovery and inspection. He asked for various documents and the deposition of certain witnesses, including Rabbi Singer’s attorney, Joseph Katz. Vivian’s lawyer wrote to Alexander stating that Mr. Katz was not a proper witness for the discovery and inspection procedure. Nassau County Probate Lawyers got the information that the lawyer even stated that he will be contesting the will under the terrorem clause and will forfeit any inheritance due to him. Alexander’s attorney disagreed and deposed Mr. Katz.

In Mr. Katz's testimony, he said that Rabbi Singer was capable and that Vivian did not influence the will. He also stated that even in the older will that was drafted the ‘no contest’ clause was already included to make sure Alexander does not contest the estate plan.

The will was submitted to probate with no contest. Vivian then filed a case to declare that Alexander violated the terrorem clauses of the will. In the surrogate court, it was found that he did. Hence, the appeal to reverse that ruling. In the examination of the Appellate Court, they stated that the examination of the witness or documents does not construe a contest. This is for an informed decision, whether they have a stand to contest the procedure or not. The court also said the discovery and inspection is not exclusive to estate, and the will does not state that the deposition of Rabbi Singer’s lawyer automatically forfeits the inheritance.

The terrorem clauses in this case did not prohibit inquiry just the contest of the will or any part of it. The court reversed the decision of the surrogate court and granted that Alexander get his share.

There are often animosities that exist between siblings. In estate cases any old issues make the contest personal. This is where levelheaded legal counsel is needed. They will be the ones to make sure the decisions made are not just emotional but correct and well founded.

You do not only need skilled legal counsel, but also ones that know where to position your point of view and make sure you get all the information first, and Stephen Bilkis & Associates have them. If you need a consult, you can them 1-800 NY - NY- LAW, and they handle cases in New York and Long Island.

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 Probate 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 Long Island Probate Lawyers said 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, 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 will contest trial lasted for nine days with dozens of evidences presented in favor 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 favor of Warren.

Nobody understands how important your properties and your estate are for you than the Westchester County Probate Lawyers. They know that you have worked hard to achieve these things and they represent your life’s work and achievements.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates together with their legal team have already established convenient office locations throughout New York’s Metropolitan areas to be able to serve you best. We are ready to give you legal advice on your properties and estate issues to give you peace of mind that your assets will remain with you and your loved ones at the most cost effective way.

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 a 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.

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 no such promise was honored by McGarry. He in fact, he 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.

On the side of McGarry, a Staten Island Probate Lawyer 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 favor 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.

Suffolk County Probate Lawyers can tell you that properties and assets are very important to a person’s life. They are possessions that you have worked for your entire life with the purpose of profiting from them or living it to your loved ones. It is frustrating if all your life’s savings will be unjustly given to another person or entity that is not of your choosing. Stephen Bilkis and Associates will make sure that your assets and properties are protected.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates have conveniently established branches and offices all over the Metropolitan area of New York. Our legal team are always willing and able to provide you with legal advice so that you understand the situation you’re in and the proper and available actions that you can do in order to protect your assets and properties at the least amount of cost.

Continue reading " Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter " »

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 " »

In February 14, 1980, the will of decedent was contested by her daughter. The decedent died in January 11, 1980, and the will questioned is dated December 1, 1979. In the dececent'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 stated that her daughter receives no part of her estate as she had adequately provided for her in her lifetime.

The will further specifies that in case that the will fails 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 decedent 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 Probate Lawyer. After five years, the charities then will receive the principal divided equally between them.

Ms. Lippner’s will included a “no contest” clause. 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 petitioner and her daughter, were 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.

The daughter 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 Brooklyn Probate Lawyers, 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 the daughter is not in the position to contest the will. This, he states, 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.

The court’s review stated 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 became 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 the daughter 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 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.

When you are faced with this situation where a last will and testament seek to deprive you of property that is rightfully yours, an experienced Queens Estate Litigation Lawyer can help you make sure your rights are upheld. They can give you your options. They will be the one to see to it that you are not robbed of any right to the part of the estate that should be yours.

Continue reading " Probate Court Rules on No Contest Clause " »

A woman died in June 1994. She left a last will and testament dated May, 25 1990. This will contain conditions in the bequest that favored her daughter. In the will, a New York Probate Lawyer said, it gave 50% of the remaining estate after taxes and fees to Mrs. Ellis daughter and the remainder is divided equally between her two sons. One would think it is unfair for the mother to do this, but with their history, you would understand why.

The previous will had the children sharing the estate equally, but after the woman's husband died the sons’ relationship with their mother got worse and with her daughter better. There was even a letter sent by one son to his sister that accused her of scheming to distance the mother from her sons. This was in March 1980. He even went as far as demand to have the old will reinstated and that the mother should not help the daughter financially unless there is proof that she needs it. He stated in his letter that if his demand is granted, then he will not publicize the issue. The son threatened to file a court case if what he wants is not done. In an undated letter to his brother, he said the "estate would be in court so long that the daughter would never see any of the money."

In May 1990, she executed the will submitted for probate. Aside from the provision she placed in favor of her daughter, she added that her will is based on the “loving care and attention” her daughter has showed her and her late husband, unlike the behavior their sons showed. She said the will is a product of a long and careful thought and was not because of undue influence from the daughter. Furthermore, in June 1993, she approached a new lawyer to draft a new will for her so that she could continue to express her desire to give the majority of her estate to the daughter. The information a Bronx Probate Lawyers gathered said she was afraid her sons will cause trouble for her daughter. This is when the terrorem clause was added wherein if any of the beneficiaries directly or indirectly contest the will or any of its conditions, their right to their share in the estate is revoked, and that share will be divided between the remaining parties who have not contested.

After the mother died in June 1994, and by July 1994 the preliminary letters were already issued. September of the same year, the brothers had started proceedings questioning the daughter's appointment as the executrix of the will. They cited reasons like substance abuse, dishonesty and improvidence or extravagance. They gave 30 pages of allegations against the daughter's suitability. The cases filed and the request for examination of witnesses and documents continued on until March 1996. By March 12, 1996, a Staten Island Probate Lawyer expressed that the Supreme Court had dismissed the case after a motion was filed by the daughter and her husband.

It was only by September 1996 that brothers withdrew their will contest. This is only after they stated that they see no need for them to withdraw the contest because it was never filed in the first place. The will entered probate on October 22, 1996 with the statement “no objection having been filed.”

The daughter, by February 1997, filed a petition with the court to instigate the terrorem clause because of the extensive pre-trial litigation. The surrogate court said that it was not violated. A the Appellate Court reversed this decision. This is because the reason that showed in the litigations was that the brothers only wanted to attack the will made by the decedent. The brothers argued that the contest was never filed so the terrorem clause was not violated. One brother also also stated he is not named as one who is objecting.

Normally, the court will see the pre probate examination as not violating the co-contest clause, but in this case, the brother went as far as question people not part of the will. Under the law, he can examine the proponents of the will, attesting witnesses, the people who drafted the will and the nominated executor. They did not even present solid evidence as to the allegations they were making against the sister. Their action also showed they did not care if they win or lose in the litigation. The requisite for good faith was not shown. The underlying intent shown by the brothers was to object to the will, and this is in violation of the no-contest clause put in by the mother to protect her daughter. The court reversed the decision with the cost being charged to the brothers and for the Surrogate Court to start proceedings on revoking their bequest under the terrorem clause.

Continue reading " Court Rules on Will Contest between Siblings " »

The decedent executed a will that left all her estate after taxes and fees to a local cemetary association, and five well known charities. 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. The cited the law regarding the contest for excessive bequest to charity. 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 according to a Queens Probate Lawyers 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. The court 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. For these reasons, said the Queens Estate Lawyer that the court found that the three cousins did not have the right to object to the donation to the charities.

When you are unclear as to what the law allows and prohibits particularly when it comes to last wills and testaments, it is important to speak with someone you can trust. We say trust because you need one that does not just want to get their fees from you without proper basis from the law but one who actually earns it fighting for your right.

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

On June 28, 1975, the decent died in West Monroe. He left a last will and testament dated November 27, 1972. The will was submitted to probate in November 1, 1977 and letters were issued to an executor of the estate and sole descendant. Prior to the settlement of the affairs, the executor died. This was November 5, 1981. In January 15, 1982, the nephew of the decedent petitioned the court for letters of administration. A New York Probate Lawyer said that the court granted this petition in January 19, 1982.

In January 7, 1983, the petitioner asked the court to rule on whether the decedent exercised his personal right under the excessive gift to charity. By May 4, 1983, a hearing was held to present evidence.

The decedent, upon the death of his mother contacted a lawyer regarding some of the provisions in his mother’s will. From the information a Nassau County Probate Lawyer got, the petitioner also asked if these certain stipulations in his mother’s will can be broken. Petitioner expressed his discontent with his mother’s will especially in the paragraph that allocates any remaining estate to be given to a hospital. The hospital at the time of the decedent's death was non-existent. In a letter dated January 12, 1982 from an attorney for the Hospital Planning Association, it was said that the the hospital was never created and will never be created.

The decedent, at some point retained a lawyer with regard to the decedent's estate. The lawyer advised that he could make a petition to determine an excessive gift to charity. This was executed by the Petitioner in March 8, 1978, which is within six months of the petitioner being appointed as executor. The lawyer then notarized and sent the petition via first-class mail, prepaid, properly addressed to the Surrogate's Court together with a cover letter dated March 8, 1978, requesting the Court Clerk to file the notice of election. The petition however, was never received. The court never knew of it until the petitioner filed this appeal.

The question that the court needed to address first is if an appeal that was executed but not filed be considered as a notice of election to contest a charitable disposition. Should it be treated as such and given effect?

The court then reviewed the terms of the law covering the contest of charitable donation through a will, and they have determined that even if there are no preceding cases the filing should be treated like the spouse’s right of election. The contest should be filed within six months and since twelve months have passed since the letters have been issued then the right no longer exists. A Nassau County Estate Litigation Lawyer said that the court deems this requirement as mandatory and indispensable.

The court could grant relief if the time that has passed is less than twelve months. Any rights that the petitioner had were extinguished with the lapse of the twelve months after the letters were issued. Although the actions of the petitioner would show that he intended to contest the will, the court considered it as unfiled as the law states that the filing with the court is not optional so the mailing is not filing.

This problem would not have happened if full attention was given to the contest when applied. A prudent lawyer would have taken care of it. They would check with the courts if it was received or sent it via courier to make sure it was received by the court clerks.

Continue reading " Court Rules on a Will Contest Regarding Charitable Donation " »

The decedent died on April 15, 1954 leaving a last will and testament that was admitted to probate on April 30 of the same year. He was survived by his wife and his brother. After about 11 and 1/2 years, the wife 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 having a husband, wife, child, or descendant or parent, shall, by his or her last will and testament, devise or bequeath to any benevolent, charitable, literary, scientific, religious or missionary society, association, corporation or purpose, in trust or otherwise, 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...’

The decedent had made his wife, his brother and his friend and attorney 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 his churchin memory of my father and mother. To the church, he bequests $1,000 in memory of his wife. The rest of the residuary estate is given to the church.

The church as the residuary inheritor, contested that the widow’s claim should be stopped.Though that the wife had not waived her right to contest 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 the wife 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 a Queens Estate Lawyer, 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, a Queens Estate Administration Lawyer said the balance undistributed was given by the court to the heirs of the deceased as intestate property.

Some people may think that 11 years is a long time to wait to file an appeal against a provision of a will, but sometimes with the devastation of losing a love one you really need that time.

Continue reading " Court Rules on Will Contest " »

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 that only confirmed and confirmed the April 29th will. According to a New York 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 Manhattan Probate Lawyer. 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 local hospital several times. The hospital is a licensed mental sanitarium in New York. 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 second hospital 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. The petition was not opposed at the hearing. In the hearing, the head of the hospital and previously consulting physician at Manhattan State 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. 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.

Continue reading " Court Strikes Down Will for Lack of Capacity " »

A wife was named primary beneficiary and second wife of the decedent, and was named primary executor of all his estates in last June. But according to a New York Probate Lawyer,the decedent's son, by previous marriage filed an objection on the last will and testament of his father claiming his wife 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 the wife 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 the wife was still and remained to be the sole executor of the husband's will.

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

The daughter on the other hand, said that she only wrote those letters because she was asked by the father's attorney for some background information on the mother 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 the daughter 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 Will and Trust Lawyer was also informed that the daughter even signed a waiver and consent that her father’s will was valid and that the title as primary executor or beneficiary of his estate of properties were all executed legally and lawfully. These documents signed by the daughter with regards to her father’s estate and also with regards to her father’s chosen executor or beneficiary only made the mother's defense stronger, strong enough to dismiss the daughter appeal to remove her from her father’s last will.

Legal counsel understands how important you property is to you. They will always make sure that your properties are well taken care of and that it will only be given to person, people or public or private entities that you have chosen and no else. They will make certain that your loved ones are protected from those who would want to take advantage of them and of your estate.

Contact a New York Will Contest Lawyer from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. We have offices all throughout the Metropolitan area of New York as well as in Corona to serve you better. We will make sure that you get the correct legal advice for your case so that you can put your mind at ease. Remeber, without skilled legal counsel you may lose your rights, properties and estate which may cost you a significant amount of money which you can already add to your estate.

Continue reading " Court Rules on Will Contest Between Mother and Daughter " »

Two individuals and a trust company submitted a counter-application regarding the preliminary letters sent to them for the last will and testament of the decedent. In the will submitted by to the court for probate, one individual and the trust company were named as executors. In their petition, the petitioner's eligibility to serve hold and oversee the assets of decedent is questioned. A New York Probate Lawyer said that the company is agreeing to act alone and not together with the petitioner.

The trust company alleges misconduct on the petitioner'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 conservator is a person 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 petitioner did not submit his records to his co-conservators, including the documents and assets of the decedent. He is also charged with preventing access to the decedent's apartment, drawing checks that are payable to himself or cash, and wrongful investment of funds owned by the decedent in Great Britain.

The court states that if there is a good cause it 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. A Manhattan Estate Litigation Lawyer 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.

A Manhattan Estate Administration Lawyer said that in their decision, the court stated that due process asserts that the petitioner is as a named executor, and has 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 the petitioner was named. To avoid multiplicity, 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 the petitioner 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.

Like good lawyers, trustworthy conservators think of their clients first and make sure that their interests are protected. A Manhattan Estate Lawyer can assist conservators in making sure that they do their job well. They are the ones who know the process to make sure while saving time and resources, they are still effective in guarding a client’s estate.

Continue reading " Court Rules on Alleged Misconduct of Co-Conservator " »