New York Probate and Estate Administration Blog

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" »

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" »

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" »