New York Probate and Estate Administration Blog

This case is in regards to the estate of Mark Rothko. Kate Rothko and Christopher Rothko are petitioners, while charitable beneficiaries are also cross-petitioners. The respondents are Bernard J. Reis, Theodoros Stamos, Morton Levine, Marlborough Gallery, Inc., Marlborough A.G., and Francis K. Lloyd. The Mark Rothko Foundation, Inc. was listed as an intervener.

The Case

A New York Probate Lawyers said Mark Rothko, a worldwide renowned abstract expressionist artist passed away on February 25, 1970. The petitioners are the artist's children. The children seek restitution for their father's estate, both in terms of paintings that were sold by the parties involved, and in financial compensation for the paintings which were already sold to non-party purchases. They also seek to have their legal fees compensated. Essentially, the suit is about whether the children, should have control over their father's estate, or whether the executors named should. The Attorney General represented the people of New York due to the charitable interest in the case. Reis and Stamos are charged with acting in a conflict of interest, while Levine is charged with negligence regarding the sale of the property. All are charged with not fulfilling their legal obligations correctly.

Examination

The respondents were prohibited from selling paintings without court permission, although the children allege that this has taken place. Mr. Reis is accused of a conflict of interest based on his positions as executor, friend and professional advisor of the deceased and as director of Marlborough Gallery. His positions as executor and as director for the gallery had opposing interests. Because of the direct conflict of interest, the courts evaluate his behavior as the same as self-dealing.

Levine and Stamos also face a problem because they knew that Reis was acting in a direct conflict of interest and did nothing, leaving them liable, in addition to Stamos' own actions against the estate which lead to further liability. Nassau County Probate Lawyer said because of the failure of the three to properly execute the will of the estate, the court saw fit to remove them as fiduciaries.

When determining restitution to the estate, the value of the paintings sold off by the Marlborough respondents needed to be calculated. A well-respected art historian, Professor Shapiro, compared Rothko's value and popularity to that of artists like Jackson Pollock. Others, including the Director of the Guggenheim and an international art dealer also testified to the importance and value of Rothko in the art world.

Further complicating the issue is that the respondents were found to be in violation of the order issued by the court which restrained them from in any way disposing of any of the paintings included in the estate. NY Probate Lawyers said this entitles the estate for restitution for those paintings which were improperly sold off. The court also needs to determine if the correct value for reparations to the petitioners should be the value of the work when it was sold, or the present value. However, following Scott on Trusts and Restatement of Trusts, it is found that the petitioners in such a case should be entitled to the value of the objects at present day if they have appreciated in value, which the paintings have. The petitioners used Ben Heller, an expert, to evaluate the value of the paintings and papers included in their father's estate. However, the courts thought his values were too high and had to lower them somewhat when assessing damages.

Results

At the end of the process, the Marlboroughs and Lloyd were fined $3,332,000 for violating orders laid down by the court. If any of the paintings which contributed to the value of this liability are returned, that amount will be subtracted from the fines owed by any of the respondents. Levine is separately liable for $6,464,880 plus interest. To discharge their liabilities to the estate, Reis, Stamos, MNY and MAG were found owing $9,252,000. Finally, the 658 paintings included in the estate which had not already been sold are to be returned to the family.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers legal services throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan. If you find yourself in need of legal advice, whether it be for am estate administration, will or probate matter, you may contact one of our offices to set up an appointment for your free consultation. Our lawyers will help you determine what your best course of legal action will be based on your current situation.

The plaintiff and appellant of this case is Gray Wolf Corporation. Gray Wolf Corporation is being represented by Warren B. Rosenbaum from Woods, Oviatt and Gilman, LLP. The defendant and respondent et al of the case is Gleason Estates Associates, LP. Gleason Estates Associates LP is being represented by Gregory J. Mascitti from Leclair Ryan. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the fourth judicial department. The judges who are hearing the case are Martoche, JJ, Lindley, Smith, and Scudder, P.J.

About the Case

A New York Probate Lawyer said this case was started by the plaintiff as a foreclosure action and then moved to a summary judgment based on the complaint. The defendant of the case made a cross move for a summary judgment to dismiss the case altogether.

Case Facts and Findings

From the beginning of the case it is noted that the Supreme Court came to the proper conclusion that the defendant was not obligated to provide the defendant with specific financial statements. This is in accordance with the different documents that were signed by both the parties as well as signed by the parties and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Additionally, the court finds that the plaintiffs’ motion for a summary judgment on the foreclosure complaint was properly denied. Suffolk County Probate Lawyers said that on the records that have been provided to us there is an issue with whether or not the defendant was in fact default on the loan.

For the same reason as above, we have made the decision that the Supreme Court made a mistake when they granted the cross motion of summary judgment to the defendant to dismiss the case.

Court Rulings

Westchester Country Probate Lawyers said that based on the above findings and the information that has been provided to the court, we have modified the order that granted the cross motion for dismissal of the case to the defendant. We feel that this is the only error made in the case and we rule in favor of the plaintiff on this particular motion.

Legal situations can become quite stressful. It is difficult to determine what your next step should be. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, we offer free consultations to help you through any type of legal situation you may be experiencing, whether you have an estate adminstration matter, a will contest or probate litigation. Our team of professional lawyers can help you determine the best steps to take for your particular situation. You may contact one of our offices located throughout New York City to set up your free consultation.

In this case, Scott H. See Jr. is the appellant. Baltic Estates, Inc. are the respondents.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer said this case involves the recovery of damages for personal injuries. There was another action that was tied to this one, but the two were eventually consolidated. With the limitations involved in his brief, the plaintiff makes an appeal against an order issued by the Supreme Court of Dutchess County which was entered in July of 2008. This order denied a motion that the appellant made which moved for the dismissal of a verdict reached by a jury. The conclusion reached by the jury had been on the side of the defendant in regards to the liability in the case. The appellant contends that the majority of the evidence should have lead the jury to rule in his favor instead of falling on the side of the defendant, which he feels is grounds for a new trial. By the same token, he appeals against the judgment made by the court on February 24th, 2009. This ruling was also in favor of the defendant.

Results

The appeal against the order issued as a result of the jury verdict was dismissed. The appeal against the other order passed by the same court at a later date was also dismissed, and the ruling of the original judgement affirmed in any aspect that was appealed against by the appellant.

Further, a single bill of costs is awarded to the respondent. Brooklyn Probate Lawyer said the reason that this appeal has to be dismissed is because no right of direct appeal exists for the appellant. Once the judgment from the original action was entered, the direct right of appeal no longer applied.

Also, the only reason that a jury verdict should be dismissed is if the verdict they reached appears to be impossible. That is to say, that if any fair and reasonable interpretation of the evidence put before a jury can indicate the reasoning of their ruling, then the verdict should never be set aside. Going against a jury verdict simply because someone argues that the majority of the evidence seemed to be on their side is a more complicated matter.

Basically, the jury in this case was presented with two separate versions of events. These events both claimed to be factual in nature, but were in conflict with each other on several points. This means that the only way for the jury to reach a verdict is to interpret the data given to them as best they can. As long as they do this in a fair manner, the ruling should be upheld.

Therefore, Long Island Probate Lawyers said that the plaintiff's movement that, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), the jury verdict that ruled in the favor of the original defendant should be set aside because most of the evidence presented at the original hearing favored the plaintiff has to be denied on these grounds.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers legal services throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan. If you find yourself in need of legal advice, whether it is a will contest, estate administration or trust, you may contact one of our offices to set up an appointment for your free consultation. Our lawyers will help you determine what your best course of legal action will be based on your current situation.

The plaintiff in the case is Island Estates Management, while the defendant is MBA-Manorhaven, LLC.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer said the plaintiff had an agreement to buy a property from the defendant, based on a contract signed in December of 1998. A deposit of $350000 was placed to secure the purchase, but the final purchase price was to be based on how many units got approved for the subdivision. Island Estates had an option to review the property which was to last 60 days. During that window they could terminate the agreement if they chose. That agreement was extended, in writing, several times, a fact that neither party argues.

The agreement also includes obligations on behalf of the buyer. For example, Island Estates had a year to get a zoning permit so that subdivision could go forward. Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said the seller also had thirty-days to provide written notice to cancel the agreement and refund the deposit. This couldn't be exercised if the failure to meet milestones was beyond the control of the buyer. However, the buyer had a maximum of two years to meet these milestones unless they paid $100,000 for an extension, which they did not.

A problem arose when environmental contamination was found on the property; although MBA-Manorhaven had not represented that there was such according to Island Estates. Long Island Probate Lawyers said it was agreed that along with extending the deadline that MBA would pay for the cleanup costs of the site up to the amount of $400,000, while Island Estates would pay any amount beyond that up to $600,000, while anything beyond that would be shared 50/50.

Island Estates alleges that MBA-Manorhaven breached their contract by failing to provide bills showing the amount of the cleanup costs, and also that they did not complete the cleanup as required in the agreement. Based on the various portions of the agreement, closing of the deal would not be completed until Island Estates received the Special Use Permit and Site Plan. However, that would not be issued until the environmental conditions were improved. MBA-Manorhaven is using that breach of contract as its reason for termination of the contract. Island Estates would like to instead close the deal.

Submitted as evidence that MBA-Manorhaven has a poor track record of cleaning up environmental problems was the claim that the DEC stated that MBA-Manorhaven has “...not always been as aggressive about remediating pollution as they have been about debating its existence...” That statement and the elapsed four year period shows that MBA-Manorhaven did not take sufficient action to correct the problem of the environmental status of the property.

When a party breaches a contract, they are not permitted to use their own breach as a reason for canceling the agreement. Essentially, MBA-Manorhaven sought to get out of any obligation they might face simply by failing to conform to their responsibilities in the agreement. This would not be an act of good faith, and is why the defendant's request to dismiss the case must be denied.

According to the initial contract, if the cleanup costs were going to be more than 2 million, then either party could cancel, unless the other party notified them within a time limit that they would pay for costs in excess of that amount. MBA-Manorhaven sought to cancel, but within the time limit, Island agreed to pay the costs, rendering that cancellation invalid.

Results

None of the reasons given by MBA-Manorhaven was able to create a valid reason by which they could cancel the contract with Island Estates. As a result, the defendant's move to dismiss the case is denied. Further, the counsel for both sides of the contract was ordered to move to a conference that would start in motion the proceedings of completion of the original deal.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers legal services throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan. If you find yourself in need of legal advice, whether it is for a will contest, estate administration issue or probate matter, you may contact one of our offices to set up an appointment for your free consultation. Our lawyers will help you determine what your best course of legal action will be based on your current situation.

On 10 May 1977, a decedent who is an attorney died. On 27 June 1977, letters of administration (estate administration) were issued to the Public Administrator, County of Nassau. He received the keys to the decedent's residence from a Nassau County police detective on 11 May 1977 and made a thorough search of the residence. The public administrator found a sealed envelope, among other things, bearing the words "Copy of Deed to Lutheran Cemetery," "Copy of Last Will and Testament" (carbon copy) bearing the decedent’s signature. On the back of the envelope, written across the flap was the decedent’s signature.
The objectants, three (3) of the cousins named in the instrument and five other individuals whose status was contested by the proponent in the instant case, conceded that the document was written in the decedent's handwriting. No evidence was offered to prove that the document was a carbon copy although the proponent herself alleged that it was a carbon and not a ribbon copy. The back of the last page was blank except for the following handwritten words: "Copy of Last Will and Testament" and "Original in Safe Deposit Box in Jam. Savings Bank."

The instrument provided for the disposition of real property and bequeathed $300.00 to each of the decedent’s eight cousins and the residuary estate to two of the cousins. It appointed the two cousins as executors of the estate.

A New York Probate Lawyer said at the time the decedent’s death, the safe deposit box at the Jamaica Savings Bank was no longer rented. An inspection of the decedent’s safe deposit box at the National Bank of North America in Williston Park also failed to disclose any instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of the decedent or a copy thereof.

Was there a revocation of a six-page handwritten document dated 17 June 1960 when only an alleged carbon copy of which has been offered for probate (estate litigation or will contest) as the last will and testament of the decedent?

In the case at bar, the witnesses, whose names were printed on the instrument offered for probate, testified regarding the execution and attestation of the decedent's will in 1960, the signing of a copy of the will by the decedent, in their presence, and the retention of both the original and the copy by the decedent. It was the proponent’s contention that the instrument offered for probate was a duplicate original rather than a copy of the original will and that the existence of a duplicate original overcomes the presumption of revocation; and, in the alternative, that the presumption of revocation is rebutted by evidence that the decedent retained the carbon copy among her important papers and treated the copy as an original. In support of the proponent’s allegations to prove non-revocation, offered into evidence were - a letter from the decedent dated April 1968 (addressed "To Whom It May Concern" stating that executrix of her estate) and an envelope (labeled "Open in case of death or supreme emergency") containing the decedent's telephone book and Personal Record and Data Book.
Suffolk County Probate Lawyers said that under the rules, where a will is last known to be in the possession of the decedent and is not found at his death, the presumption arises that the decedent himself destroyed the will animo revocandi. This presumption of intentional revocation, however, may be rebutted by circumstantial evidence. Where the proponent of a will cannot produce the executed ribbon copy but produces a fully executed carbon copy which was in the decedent's possession at the time of his death, the presumption of revocation is overcome. Here, there was no evidence that the witnesses, whose names were printed on the carbon copy signed the copy.

For the execution and attestation of wills, it is required that a will must be signed at the end by at least two witnesses. Westchester County Probate Lawyers said the privilege of informal testation is granted only to mariners at sea and military personnel, thus, cannot be applied in the instant case. Since there is no proof that the decedent satisfied these requirements, the conclusion must be that the instrument was not executed with the necessary formalities and is at best a conformed copy of the original. The presumption of revocation is therefore operative.
Further, it has been ruled that the retention by the decedent of a reproduced copy of his will along with an original codicil executed subsequent to the execution of the will was held to rebut the presumption of revocation. No such circumstances exist in the present case. The words on the back of the carbon copy explicitly stated that the original will was located in a safe deposit box. Evidently, the decedent did not believe that the carbon copy offered for probate was her original will and she did not have any intention for it to be accepted as such.

In addition, declarations of a deceased concerning revocation or non-revocation are only admissable as part of the res gestae, the reason being that it is likely that a decedent may have attempted, during his lifetime, to "silence importunity and elude questions" concerning the testamentary disposition of his property and therefore statements made to third parties concerning his will have little credibility. This reasoning applies with equal force to statements in writing. Written declarations of a decedent which are not received as part of the res gestae are inadmissable on the question of revocation. In any event the letter if admitted into evidence, at best might prove non-revocation as of 1968, more than nine years prior to the decedent's death. The 1968 letter did not constitute a republication of the 1960 instrument. For it to be such, it is required that there be a re-execution and re-attestation for republication of a prior will.
The proponent here failed to offer sufficient proof to rebut the presumption of revocation. Consequently, the petition for probate was denied.
Have you executed a will yet? Or you know someone who wants to? Be prepared and secure your assets. Don’t be the person who executes one but later rendered ineffective and leaves confusion to the heirs. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, we do what’s best for you with strict conformity with the law. Our Nassau County Estate Lawyers know the right procedures. Estate administration is our expertise. Consult with our Nassau County Estate Litigation Attorneys.

On 4 July 2009, the decedent died prompting the petitioner to employ the services of a lawyer. A retainer Agreement was entered into by the parties stipulating the amount of attorney’s fees to be paid. Thereafter, the petitioner questioned the amount billed by the lawyer as his attorney’s fees alleging a wrong calculation of the estate as the basis, among others.

How much should, actually, be the attorney’s fees? What should be included or excluded?
A New York Probate Lawyer said the court has ruled that the ultimate responsibility for approving legal fees that are charged to an estate and the discretion to determine what constitutes reasonable compensation for legal services rendered in the course of an estate lies with them. While there is no hard and fast rule to calculate reasonable compensation to an attorney in every case, the court is required to exercise his or her authority "with reason, proper discretion and not arbitrarily".

In determining the cost of legal services, several factors are considered and these include - time spent; complexity of the questions involved; nature of the services provided; amount of litigation; amounts involved and the benefit resulting from the execution of such services; lawyer's experience and reputation; and, customary fee charged by the Bar for similar services. The fee must be the result of all the elements set forth, in balance. The legal fee must also bear a reasonable relationship to the size of the estate. A sizeable estate permits adequate compensation, but nothing beyond that. The size of the estate can operate as a limitation on the fees payable, without constituting an adverse reflection on the services provided.
NY Probate Lawyers said the burden of proof as to the reasonable value of legal services performed rests on the attorney performing those services. Contemporaneous records of legal time spent on estate matters are of importance.

An attorney may not be reimbursed for expenses that the court normally considers to be part of overhead, such as photocopying, postage, telephone calls, messengers and couriers, express deliveries and computer-assisted legal research and other items of the same matter. The court concluded that it would permit reimbursement for such disbursements only if they involved payment to an outside supplier of goods and services, adopting the standards set forth by previously decided similar cases. The court prohibited reimbursement for ordinary postage and telephone charges other than long distance.

A Queens Probate Lawyer said that the retainer agreement was unclear at best. It states a fee of five percent of the gross estate for the "probate" (estate litigation or will contest) of the decedent's will. The administration of the estate (estate administration) was not addressed. The billing records submitted to the court were prepared after the petitioner commenced this proceeding; they were not prepared contemporaneously. The bill included entries of 2.3 hours for the "trip to the Court to file the petition - the payment of the filing fee, ".45 hours for the "trip to the Post Office - mailed out notices certificates mail return receipt" and for other services that are not properly billable as attorney's fees, such as faxing. Additionally, the time spent on many items exceeded that which would be expected for the tasks listed. A good example was when the respondent billed 1.75 hours of time on a meeting with a process server to "review and discuss[] service." There was no delineation of disbursements.

All the same, the respondent did perform certain services that resulted with the will being filed for a probate proceeding and the estate administered. Based on the benchmarks set forth above, the court fixed the respondent's legal fee at $18,000.00, inclusive of disbursements. The respondent was ordered to refund to the petitioner, as executor of the estate, the amount of $17,375.00 (difference between the amount paid and the amount allowed).

Do you want to hire a lawyer but you don’t know how much the service of one would cost? Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. We only charge fees that are fairly reasonable and necessary. Whether you have an estate administration issue, need a will litigated or have a probate contest, have our assurance that your money is well spent with our Nassau County Probate Attorneys who are extremely knowledgeable with estate law. Not a dime is wasted with our Nassau County Estate Lawyers. Our time is worth your dime.

On 4 February 2007, a resident of Nassau County died leaving a will dated 20 September 2006. She was survived by her two (2) children, a grandchild and two (2) minor grandchildren. Such will has been offered for probate by the nominated executor (decedent’s husband).

The will created a trust to be funded with the "exemption amount." The trust shall terminate upon the death of the decedent’s husband who has a limited testamentary power of appointment over the trust principal. If or to the extent that the decedent’s husband failed to exercise the limited power of appointment, the remaining trust principal is payable to the decedent’s husband 1993 Insurance Trust. The residuary estate is then payable to the decedent’s husband. The decedent’s husband and the children are named under the will as trustee and successor trustees, respectively. Also, "no bond or other security shall be required of any Executor for the faithful performance of such person's fiduciary duties in any capacity." Thereafter, the attorney-draftsman submitted an affidavit and averred that he inadvertently used the word "Executor" instead of "fiduciary." Apparently, the decedent's prior will dated 2 April 1993, which contained one trust, dispensed with a bond in the case of any "fiduciary."

In the instant case (estate litigation or estate administration) there is no will contest. However, the court is asked to dispense with the filing of a bond by the nominated trustee due to a purported scrivener's error in the will.

The rules mandate that a testamentary trustee post a bond unless the will provides otherwise. The bond filed by the testamentary trustee shall be "in such amount as the court directs." A testamentary trustee is required to file a bond where the will does not exempt the trustee from this requirement unless clear and convincing reasons are presented to dispense with the bond or to fix it at a reduced amount. Such clear and convincing reasons might be the consents or a showing that the filing of a bond is not economically feasible." The court did not dispense with the filing of a bond by the trustee. The court reasoned that "a will is required to contain written directions as to a decedent's intent and to be executed with certain formalities to avoid speculation with regard to the last wishes of the decedent". A New York Probate Lawyer said that although the court noted that it had no doubt that the decedent trusted the proposed trustee since he did in fact nominate him, it concluded that it could only speculate as to whether the decedent would have dispensed with a bond if he had known the cost. Moreover, the court declined to dispense with the bond based upon the consent of the income beneficiary. The court reasoned that if the income beneficiary failed to live until the trust terminated, there would be no bond to protect the interests of his issue, who were either too young to give their consent or were not yet in existence.

NYC Probate Lawyers said the court ruled that reformation of a will may occur simultaneously with a will's admission to probate where the provision in question clearly makes no sense as drafted and appears to be the result of a scrivener's error. "Generally, extrinsic evidence may not be used to show that a provision was inadvertently omitted from a will, but [the court] should admit extrinsic evidence if there is an ambiguity on the face of the will.

Clearly, the bond provision is evident and does not appear on its face to be the obvious result of a scrivener's error. Queens Probate Lawyers said that hence, the court has declined to reform the will. On the other hand, based upon the attorney-draftsman's affidavit, clear and convincing reasons have been presented to dispense with the requirement of a bond by the trustee (upon submission of consents by the decedent’s children and their respective spouses, the grandchild of legal age and the trustee of the 1993 Insurance trust).

Do you know what a bond is and when it is required? At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, we explain everything to you. Know what you need to know when you need to know them. Our Nassau County Estate Lawyers are more than ready to answer your questions. Protect yourself. Know your options.

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 " »

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" »

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" »

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

Continue reading "Estate Tax in DC" »

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

Continue reading "Connecticut Probate Court System nears Surplus" »

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

Continue reading "Estate Planning in 2011" »

A California court has decided belief in a marriage can, in fact, make it legal when a man marries another woman before his divorce is final.
A state appeals court reinstated the lawsuit of a woman over the death of a man she may or may not have been married to for four years. In the eyes of the law, he was her husband, even though he married her while still legally married to another woman.
Similar suits have been rejected consistently for more than two decades, New York City Estate Planning Lawyers have discovered. Court after court rejected the suit until finally the Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose said because the plaintiff “believed in good faith” she was, in fact, legally married, she has marital rights, which includes the right to sue another party for wrongful death.
There was a decision in 1988 that declared claiming marital rights not only had to involve a sincere belief that the marriage was valid, but be “objectively reasonable”, as well. In that case, the alimony claim of a woman was rejected because she married a man in a religious ceremony that was not recognized by California law. The husband told her the marriage was perfectly valid – then decided two years later that it was not when he decided to marry another woman.
The court then ruled the woman who had gone through the ceremony had no marital rights, because though she believed she was married, that belief was unreasonable, New York City Probate Lawyers have learned.
The more recent ruling in the current lawsuit said the 1988 decision was wrong in that it distorted a law that should protect “innocent parties of an invalid marriage.” Now the suit of a woman married in September 2003 in a church may go on, even though the man involved was still married to another woman, unknown to her.
It was three months after the wedding before the divorce became final, but the purported wife did not read the divorce papers closely. She believed herself to be legally married until the man, an ironworker, died in a workplace accident. When she sued a contractor for negligence, the suit was dismissed on the grounds that she was never married to the ironworker. This case is being studied in Long Island and Westchester County.

Continue reading "Woman’s Wrongful Death Suit Reinstated in California" »

The niece of a deceased ice cream chain owner has ended up in bankruptcy court, indicated a firm of New York Estate Planning Lawyers.
It is her assertion that she is the rightful heir and administrator of the ice cream fortune – not the foundation to which the money has gone. She already made several attempts in New York, before filing personal bankruptcy in Fort Lauderdale, saying she had $32 million in litigation claims as her assets.
There are some who say it was a good idea, legally, for her to file bankruptcy. It may have held back some orders from the New York judges who are still overseeing her conflict with the foundation. Unfortunately for the would-be heiress, it did not quite go that way.
Currently, the woman would like to be released from the bankruptcy court. The foundation is attempting to have her case converted to a Chapter 7. A trustee was set up to oversee her estate. One reason this was allowed, sources informed, is that the litigant was not insuring her property. A significant piece of said property was her Fort Lauderdale home, which has been assessed at $1.68 million.
The litigant filed a personal Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February. She has no attorney representing her. At the time of the filing, she claimed to have only $614,000 in assets.
It is difficult to gather further information on the woman – New York Probate Lawyers were unable to contact her and her Fort Lauderdale house appears abandoned.
According to the litigant, however, someone killed her uncle in 1990, after he learned someone was stealing from him. She attempted to get her uncle’s body exhumed in 2007, but a judge denied her request.
The ice cream chain owner started with only one delivery truck and expanded to more than 800 stores by the time of his death. Now based in Atlanta, the company can boast more than 500 franchised and food service locations. NY Estate Planning Lawyers are advising clients in New York City and Staten Island to be aware of this situation and take care not to wind up the same.
The company is part of an even larger company that franchises and operates more than 3,200 locations with such famous names as Cinnabon, Schlotzsky’s, and Auntie Annie’s Pretzels not only in the United States, but in 35 other countries as well.

Continue reading "South Florida Woman’s Fight for Inheritance Ends Up in Bankruptcy Court" »

Many people tend to overlook the likelihood of being hit with an estate tax because they aren’t considered “rich.” But according to NY Estate Lawyers many upper middle-class citizens could be hit with a tax rate as high as 35%.
Currently the law indicates an exemption for estate tax of up to $5 million for those who die in 2011 and 2012. What many people are unaware of is that this amount can easily be exceeded when you take life insurance coverage, a valuable home, healthy retirement balances and other assets into account.
“Don’t forget to count any private business ownership interests such as shares in a family corporation or partnership,” explained a New York Probate Lawyer.
He continued explaining an example about a divorced single parent. “She earns a healthy salary, she has a $4 million term life policy to provide for her three teenagers, has $800,000 of equity in her home, $1 million in retirement plan accounts, and $500,000 worth of assorted personal assets (cars, clothes, furniture, jewelry, and so forth). She has no debt other than her mortgage and because she has never considered herself to be anything close to ‘rich’ she has never done any estate-tax-avoidance planning.”
The lawyer explained that if she died tomorrow, her estate would be worth $6.3 million for federal estate tax purposes ($4 million + $800,000 + $1 million + $500,000), and her estate would accumulate a state bill of $455,000.
This scenario is all too common and they also add that for unmarried people, high life insurance coverage is the biggest reason for unexpected federal estate taxes. Married couples, he sited have an advantage because of the unlimited marital deduction privilege. This deduction is only good for U.S. citizens he added.
Lawyers are now recommending to their clients setting up an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust. This basically helps avoid traditional estate taxes on the life insurance policy because it is not officially owned by anybody. The only catch is if you die within three years of setting up the trust you are subject to estate tax on it. People in The Bronx and Brooklyn should seek advice as to what road to follow.
In the end experts recommend talking to a professional to find out what your situation is. Although many people think they are exempt, often times they are not and only a professional can make the right recommendation. “It’s money well-spent,” one lawyer concluded.

Continue reading "Seeking an estate planning lawyer’s advice is essential" »

In 2010 when a person died, there would have been no estate tax owed, according to a New York Probate Lawyer. He added that in 2010 the estate tax had been repealed.
In 2011, estate taxes will be reinstated but a high amount of $5 million will be set. In the past, two spouses could individually file their own exemptions, which brought this number up to $10 million. The catch was they had to use caution with the way they labeled assets and had “to have bypass trusted drafted by estate planning attorneys”.
Trust preparation costs as much as $5,000 to $10,000. President Obama’s new tax law aims to create decent tax breaks for married couples because spouses can use leftover portions of a deceased spouse’s estate tax on their own exemptions with no trust requirements. This means a taxable estate of $3.5 million that is left behind could be added as part of the $5 million exemption for a later date or time. Families in Manhattan a Queens qualify for these advantages.
A New York Probate Lawyer calls this new tax law a great “portable” feature for estate money and preserving taxes. The only downfall according to some is the fact that the law was only signed for 2011 and 2012. Still, most agree the new law will provide great benefits to most people in the higher tax brackets and will save a lot of money on the potentially expensive trusts they will not have to create during this time.

Continue reading "What new tax laws will mean for married couples, explains New York Estate Planning Lawyers " »

In spite of the stone-throwing and partisan pandering of last December’s revamp of US tax law, a New York Estate Planning Lawyer claims that there are a few hidden gems for families willing to dig through the rubble.

In particular, the New York Probate Lawyer singled out the new gift tax laws as a boon for those in high tax brackets.

The gift-tax exemption, the much maligned cap on individual giving, which has long been set at what some would consider a paltry one million dollars, has been raised dramatically for the next two years to the princely sum of five million dollars for individuals- or a whopping ten million dollars for individuals. Accountants in Nassau and Suffolk Counties are studying the new law and trying to find ways to help their clients.

The result of the new law is that wealthier families can now gift up to five (or ten) million dollars, before even a cent of federal taxation kicks in. Once over the federally allowed limit, givers still only face a 35 percent government tax, far lower than the previous 55 percent rate, reported the New York Estate Planning Lawyer.

In the wake of the change, families are rearranging their estate plans to take advantage of the two year opening. There is a great deal of uncertainty as to whether the tax reduction will be renewed beyond the initial two year period. Two years is generally regarded as a relatively short term for an estate tax law. The previous law was instated for a decade, before being ushered out in 2010. Some Estate Planners are heralding the move by Congress as the beginning of the end of the estate tax.

Continue reading "New Tax Law Could Benefit the Rich" »

According to one NY Probate Lawyer, this is the year to give. Thanks to sweeping changes in the laws governing the estate tax by President Obama late in 2010, making a lifetime gift is now easier than ever.

Lifetime gifts have long been the preferred method for transferring wealth from one family member to another. Lifetime gifts are not subjected to the heavy tax burden which posthumous gifts typically carry. The catch, in the past, was that lifetime gifts were capped at a relatively low level before the Gift Tax kicked in, meaning that the amount that could be transferred to a spouse or other loved one was actually quite small. The new law raises that cap to an all-time high.

If you are an Asset Planner or New York Estate Planning Lawyer, this new loophole could mean big business in the next two years. The new law is set to expire in 2012, and no additional plans have been made in Congress, meaning that the amount of time taxpayers have to take advantage of the new law could be short. Planners in New York City and Long Island are aware of these changes.

Some on Capitol Hill have indicated that this new wave of laws could be heralding the end of the estate tax itself. Others have indicated that it is only a temporary tax-relief outlet to stimulate the economy. In either case, estate planning lawyers are seeing an increase in the number of lifetime gifts, as well as in the number of “I love you” will, where couples with significant means leave assets directly to each other, without sheltering the money in a residuary trust, charitable fund, bypass trust, or other tax shelter annuity.

Continue reading "Considering A Lifetime Gift? This is Your Year, says New York Probate Lawyer" »

A local Ohio town worries about the effects eliminating the estate tax will have on its overall revenue and future plans.

The town’s financial director says here city receives a large chunk of revenue from estate taxes currently. For example an Estate that’s valued at over $500,000 is taxed at 7 percent. The town gets 80 percent of this revenue and the rest goes to the state of Ohio she added.

This high percentage translates to roughly $5 million per year for the city, said aNew York Estate Planning Lawyer. He went on to say that the city budgets for this currently and without the extra revenue will likely have to find other ways to make cuts. Estate Administration in Manhattan and Queens must take these taxes into account for their clients.

Currently the town has plans for large capital improvements to the tune of $52.6 million over the next decade and was counting on the cash revenue from estate taxes to complete these projects. New York Estate Planning Lawyers commented that the projected tax revenue losses will have to make up in other ways.

“We’ll use up all of our existing estate tax dollars and nothing to replace them with,” said a town official. “We don’t know for sure what will happen and will have to adjust.”

Another official said, “We’re going to have to cut our expenses in order to keep wealthy residents from moving away.”

NY Estate Planning Lawyers anticipate the next council meeting will be mostly about finding other ways for the town to create revenue for itself for future projects.

Continue reading "Loss of Estate Tax translates to loss of major revenue for a local Ohio town, reports New York Estate Planning Lawyers." »

Many senior citizens got an unpleasant surprise this February. Pensioners and seniors who rely on federal benefits to make ends meet were hit with the harsh new reality of the federal financial landscape when they discovered that their social security checks had been decreased. Although some were warned about the change in a letter that came with their check, many were left guessing.

We spoke with a New York City Estate Planning Lawyer, who explained the recent change in benefits. The reduction in the payout for senior citizens was an indirect result of the new tax relief act, which was enacted in tax year 2010. The new tax relief act cuts social security taxes for those still in the workforce, which federal economists hoped would help stimulate the economy by giving those who are still contributing to the marketplace more expendable income.

In order to make room for the new cuts, which according to the New York Estate Planning Lawyer amount to approximately a two percent drop in collected income by the IRS, the federal income taxes for those who are not working were raised, effectively lowering the payout for retirees and others who depend on social security benefits. Lawyers in Nassau and Suffolk Counties must be aware of these and any other changes that come down and effect Estate Administration.

Whether the raise in the tax rate for those receiving government assistance continues beyond the next few years is anyone’s guess, said the New York Estate Planning Lawyer. He further suggested that the best way to avoid getting caught in the crunch is to carefully review your finances with a qualified professional.

Continue reading "Tax Law Expires Leaving Elderly at Risk" »

Extensive trust-planning and maneuvering tax law in order to protect a surviving spouse has long been a central part of the job of any qualified New York City Estate Planning Lawyer. Almost as soon as the United States Government christened the estate tax, wealthy families began finding ways around paying. Of central concern for many married couples is how to avoid the estate tax long enough that if one partner in the marriage dies, the other partner’s assets are protected, and any shared wealth is not taxed.

One of the most time-trusted methods of escaping the estate tax is a bypass trust- known more familiarly as a “family trust”. This trust is typically used to set up a trust-fund. The money which is set aside in a trust fund or other tax sheltered annuity (another common example is a charitable trust), is not taxable by the government. The surviving spouse can continue to live on whatever interest the fund might bear. In some cases, he or she can actually use a small percentage of the principal as well. Lawyers in Brooklyn and The Bronx are constantly trying to improve their handling of these problems.

According to the New York Estate Planning Lawyer we spoke with, the new tax law enacted at the end of 2010 could spell good news for married couples trying to plan their estate. By significantly raising the exemption and making those exemptions portable (in other words, transferable from one spouse to another in the event of death), the federal government has given couples the option of leaving funds directly to one another, without going through a trust or other tax shelter.

Continue reading "New Estate Tax Law Alters Estate Decisions" »

The Estate Planning community is in a buzz over a new tax law approved by president Obama in late December of 2010. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, or TRA 2010 for short, is a “game-changer,” one New York Estate Planning Lawyer is saying. In the past, the entire estate planning business revolved around estate taxes, and how those taxes were applied. In light of the new law, these taxes represent a much smaller hurdle to the industry at large. Lawyers in The Bronx and Staten Island are very aware that laws can change at any time.

If you are a New York Estate Planning Lawyer, and are considering giving your congressional representative a thank-you call, you are certainly not alone; but I would caution you to first read the fine print of the law. While no law is ever completely permanent, this law comes with an expiration date. After two years, the law is slated for review. If it is not reviewed and reinstated at that point, then estate tax law will effectively be reset to the levels present before the law was enacted.

On the other side of the equation, one New York Estate Planning Lawyer claims that this new law sounds the death knell for the Estate Tax in general. He contends that under the New TRA law, the value of collectible Estate Taxes is now so small as to be almost negligible, and would be a waste of IRS manpower to even bother to collect. Only time will tell whether the new law will act as a temporary tax relief mechanism, or as a stepping stone to Estate Tax repeal.

Don’t wait until it’s too late to make decisions about your financial legacy. A New York Estate Planning Attorney is one call away, and can help bring peace of mind to you and your loved ones that they will be taken care of, and that your wishes will be carried out as you intend.

Continue reading "New Tax Law Changes the Game " »

Every good New York Estate Planning Lawyer knows that estate panning is about preparing for the unthinkable. They frequently work with people for whom the prognosis is poor, stepping in to facilitate estate planning, long-term care planning, or to establish and administrate the estate after the death of a loved one.

Unfortunately, even the most seasoned New York Estate Planning Lawyer cannot plan for the unexpected when the source of confusion is the federal government, as has been the case in recent years. Estate planning lawyers rely heavily on the ability to map out the future for the people they work with- to meet with a client, and give them a picture of what the taxation structure will be like for the next five or ten years. Attorneys in Queens and New York are aware of any changes which take place in these areas.

The estate planning community has been in a state of flux over the past year. Because Congress failed to make a prompt decision regarding estate tax legislation, no estate taxes were imposed by the internal revenue service for tax year 2010. Nearing the end of the congressional year, congress passed the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which contains significant cuts and changes to the current estate tax laws.

At least one New York Estate Planning Lawyer questions the usefulness of such a change. While at face value, raising the estate tax cap should be a good thing, the problem is in the planning. Because the law has a two year cap, and then will have to be reevaluated, it is impossible for tax lawyers to effectively advise their clients on a successful long-term strategy. To give a comparison, the tax laws which are being replaced had been in effect for almost 10 years.

Continue reading "Thoughts on the New Estate Tax" »

Think that Canadians are exempt from paying estate tax? One New York Estate Planning Lawyer says you could be wrong. Even Canadians who have never so much has set foot on US soil are on the hook for estate tax in many situations, if they don’t take the right precautions in advance.
According to United States tax laws, the estate tax can be levied against any person, regardless of nationality, who owns “US situs property”. This ambiguous term can be applied on a number of different levels, but broadly means anything that exists (either physically, or in some cases hypothetically), within the borders of the United States. A New York Estate Planning Lawyer gave us some examples of what might qualify for the estate tax. An obvious example would be either a house or a tract of land. Less obvious candidates for this tax would be things like bonds purchased from the US government, or stocks in a company headquartered in the United States. Non US residents who own such property can be subjected to the estate tax at the same rate as a US citizen would be. Lawyers in Manhattan and Nassau Count will be glad to counsel their Canadian clients.
For this reason, it’s critically important that as a Canadian citizen you carefully evaluate your tax exposure well in advance. Because ties between the US and Canada are so close, it can be very difficult to sort out your assets, and make an accurate determination, so consider calling a New York Estate Planning Lawyer, who can help walk you through the process.
A New York Estate Planning Attorney can show you how to shift your tax liabilities over to a Canada-based holding company, which will help exempt your family from US tax liability.

Continue reading "Canadians on the Hook for US Estate Tax" »

August 13, 1970, Julia Eckhart died leaving two children, Charlotte Eckart and Frank Darmody. In her will that was dated August 4, 1966, she left each of them the sum of $50 and the rest to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. The will was admitted to probate and daughter, Ms. Eckart and Mr. Darmody submitted intent to contest the will. This is because of the size of the estate distributed by the will. A New York Estate Litigation Lawyer says that in the Estates, Power and Trusts Law, gifts to a charitable institution should not be more than half of the estate if contested by a descendant or parent. The law further states that the person can only contest if they are to receive a monetary benefit if the contest is successful as the beneficiary of the will.
Being the children of the deceased is not questionable. What needs to be decided on is if they have the right because they will receive a pecuniary benefit. The executor’s point of view was that the children did not have the right as the will expressed that Mrs. Eckhart, the deceased, did not want to give her children more than the $50, she provided for each of them. He relied on the case of Joseph Cairo as an example. The Cairo case had the specific words that said that the deceased did not wish to give the grandson, Joseph Cairo, anything from the estate. The grandson was not going to benefit from a successful contest.
In this matter, according to a report, the deceased placed her relatives in different levels as her children got $50 inheritance while the others did not. There was nothing that specifically or expressly stated she wished they do not receive anything more than the $50, she had appropriated in her will. The $50 in this case is insignificant. It does not show the intent of the testatrix if she wished to take away inheritance from her children. The law takes out intention with its provision. It keeps only what is stated in the will.
The policy of Stare decisis, which is for a judge to respect prior instances and follow that example, does not apply to this case because they are different. It is also not a hard-and-fast rule because if there is a compelling reason or if there was a misinterpretation of the law, then they can deviate from the old decision. The exceptions also have limitations.
A New York Estate Lawyer also mentioned that there is Mortmain Act that checks how much a charitable organization can get so as not to deprive or cheat relatives and dependents of the testator. It is similar to the rule that prohibits a testator from disinheriting a spouse. This does not stop the testator fully from giving everything to charity as they can still place a ‘no contest’ clause that can make sure of it. This revision in the will is a way for the testator to dodge the rule. This modification on the will did not appear in the deceased will.
The order appealed from was reversed by the Court of appeals. The matter was given back to the Surrogates court. The costs were given to each party separately payable from the estate. This would be handled in a similar way in Brooklyn and Long Island.

Continue reading "Julia Eckhart died leaving two children" »