New York Probate and Estate Administration Blog

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. New York Probate Lawyers say 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, a Staten Island Probate Lawyer states, 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, 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 Bronx Probate Lawyers 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.

The law can still be misinterpreted and also the last will and testaments left by a relative or family member. If you need an order reviewed then what you need is Stephen Bilkis and Associates who can go through the case with you efficiency. They will also be the one to question any misconstrued part to make sure you get what should be yours.

Anywhere you are in New York or Long Island you can reach them at 1-800 NY - NY- LAW. Get a free consultation with them and you will know that you are going to be with a lawyer you can trust.

Chardbourne and Parke, LLP represented the people who are involved in a Will left by Renate Hoffman, deceased. The Will was executed by Hoffman in 1988 and named the German National Church as primary beneficiary of his estate. According to reports, this 1988 Will was strongly objected and challenged by Robert Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. who were the primary executors of a prior Will of Hoffman which was executed in 1972. This became a long and extensive trial in which the two parties, Chardbourne and Park as well as Warshaw and Chase Manhattan entered in to an agreement in which the German Catholic Church received a considerable sum of $3 million dollars. In addition to this hefty settlement, the church will also receive a half-interest in a trust from the proceeds of the remainder of the estate.

According to further report given to New York Probate Lawyers, Chardbourne and Parke filed a case against Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank because of unpaid legal fees when the former performed its legal duties during the German Catholic Church settlement. Unfortunately their case did not progress in court. The court ruled in favour of the defendants, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan. In 2001 however, Chardbourne and Parke filed for an appeal of the previous decision by the court. Warshaw and Chase Manhattan argued that the 1988 Will was not the correct one to be administered and that Chardbourne has acted knowingly on their own. It was also noted by Warshaw and Manhattan that there was further wrong doing on the part of Chardbourne and Parke, LPP.

The trial continued on and arguments were presented regarding the 1988 Will’s validity which was also again brought up. This is due to the fact that Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank refused to grant Chardbourne and Parke the legal or attorney’s fees. Warshaw and Chase’s argument was that the 1988 Will was only illegal but that Chardbourne and Park was already aware of this but still continued on with its execution. But based on reports, when Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank entered into an agreement and settlement with Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the latter already impliedly recognized the validity of the Will and the contract agreement both parties entered into. Still according to the court, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan allowed a considerable amount of money be given to the primary beneficiary of the 1988 Will which was the German Catholic Church with a half interest on trust as part of the estate. This was considered by the court as more than enough evidence that both parties agreed on the validity of the Will in question. The court also noted that there is no legal cause to deny Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the legal fees for their services rendered.

On this light, Long Island Probate Lawyers also gathered that with regards to the legal fees in question, the respondents, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan only have the right to question the amount that Chardbourne and Parke will present, if it’s reasonable based on the services they performed but not the to question whether they are entitled to legal fees or not.

Your estate, your assets and properties are very important to you. These represent your life long achievements and hard work. Suffolk County Probate Lawyers are here to help you keep them within your family and the people you only wish to share them with.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates is here to help and has made it easier for you to access their offices which are already all over the Metropolitan area of New York. Remember that without skilled legal counsel, you might lose your life worth of savings and possibly more.

The public assistance recipients who had been classified as employable with limitations had a filed an instant law suit against the City administration and the State. The people were classified as such because of the medical problems that they have. Their allegation was that the City administration often puts them in jobs that are not compatible with their disabilities. The plaintiffs who have been assigned to the Work Experience Program (WEP) state that aside from the incompatible jobs, the State has failed to supervise the program under the Social Services law.

New York Probate Lawyers found out that the court has found that the plaintiffs had raised a serious fairness issue and could be entitled to a Writ of Mandamus that requires a government agency to do something that they should by law. It can also be a writ of prohibition, which will prohibit a government agency, even a judge, from doing something that they should not. Or it can also be a Mandamus Review, where a decision of a public agency is reversed.

According to the social services law, in exchange for welfare benefits, the aid recipients need to perform WEP assignments, unless the recipients are exempted due to physical or mental disabilities. The city’s medical contractor determines if they are E-I or employable, E-II or employable with limitations, E-III or temporarily disabled, or E-IV which is permanently disabled, according to a Manhattan Probate Lawyer said. People classified as E-II should still work but will be assigned jobs compatible with their disability.

There are two things that may have gone wrong. The person may have been incorrectly classified or correctly classified but put in the wrong assignment. If a recipient feels that they should not be employable there is a hearing that they can request to determine this. From the information aquired by a Queens Probate Lawyer from the city, the process is included in the notices sent to the recipient after they have been classified.

The medical condition of the beneficiary is not accommodated. The notice states that unless the person requests a hearing within 10 days of receiving the notice, she must continue with the assignment. A named plaintiff, in fact, says that she received her notice without any indication in how to dispute assignments. With her notice, she received an assignment for a maintenance job. She is considered incompatible with this as she has respiratory problems. She requested a hearing before going to the job site so as not to miss the 10-day grace period. The city then said she cannot go on review yet because she is not assigned a specific task yet.

The doctor’s findings are sent in the second notice. The Physician Assessment of Client Employability (PACE) report is the documentation that a beneficiary can bring to a work site to show her limitation. It still does not say anything about the participants’ procedural rights.

The next notice that a beneficiary received contains where they will be assigned. It can be a government office, public park, etc. It does not contain though what specific assignment they would get. The city administrators say this cannot be specified as the work is assigned depending on what that department needs day to day.

The last one that they receive is an orientation manual. It states that they can contest their employability status. It still does not discuss how they can dispute certain assignments. It states that PACE should expressly state that they are unable to work.

The city says that any issue with the job assignment should first be raised with the work-site supervisor and coordinator and then the Participant Services Unit. Only after that they can request a hearing with the city. They state that the proper way is to know what the assignment is first then utilize the current mechanisms available then seek a fair hearing where they still get aid without working.

The court had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Not only, with the notices but also on providing a way on how they can dispute an assignment. Being forced to do an incompatible assignment while the case is being tried is also something that they had made clear to change. With regard to remedy, the court granted the defendants claim to convert it to the remedies available.

Even on welfare, a person has rights. It does not mean that you are on welfare, and you do not need to be treated fairly. Stephen Bilkis and Associates can make sure that your rights are upheld, and you get an impartial treatment, in welfare or at a regular work.

Whether you are in a dispute with a governmental agency, or are involved in an estate litigation or trust administration proceeding, it is important to speak with legal counsel to ensure that your rights are protected. Call us today to schedule your free consultation.

On June 28, 1975, a man 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 a family member as the executor of the estate and sole descendant. Prior to the settlement of the affairs, this family member died. This was November 5, 1981. In January 15, 1982, the nephew of the deceased executor petitioned the court for letters of administration. The court granted this petition in January 19, 1982.

In January 7, 1983, nephew 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. The nephew also asked if these certain stipulations in his mother’s will can be broken. He expressed his discontent with his mother’s will especially in the paragraph that allocates any remaining estate to be given to Hospital North. Hospital North at the time of decedents death was non-existent. In a letter dated January 12, 1982 from an attorney for the Hospital North, it was said that the Hospital North was never created and will never be created.

The nephew at some point retained a lawyer with regard to the decedent's estate. The lawyer advised him that he could make a petition to determine an excessive gift to charity. This was executed by the nephew in March 8, 1978, which is within six months 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, according to a New York Probate Lawyers, was never received. The court never knew of it until the nephew 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 Brooklyn Probate 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 nephew had were extinguished with the lapse of the twelve months after the letters were issued. Although the actions of the nephew would show that he intended to contest the will, according to a Nassau County Estate Lawyer, 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.

Continue reading "Can an Appeal that was Never Filed Serve as Notice of a Will Contest" »

In a work-related accident, the decedent suffered permanent substantial disability in October 1973. An employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier was instructed to pay disability benefits to him. The defendant had pre-existing diabetes so the carrier applied and was give reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law.

When the decedent died on January 7, 1982, his widow filed to claim death benefits because she alleged that the injury sustained in October 1973 was an underlying factor in her husband’s death. A New York Probate Lawyer said that in compliance with the Workers' Compensation Law the carrier converted the claim and applied for reimbursement from the Fund. There was a hearing with before an Administrative Law Judge and the application of the wife for death benefits was granted. The carrier did not ask for a review of the Workers' Compensation Board about the connection of the injury to the death.

There was a later hearing for the carrier’s application for reimbursement from the Fund. The fund asked the Administrative Law Judge not to make a ruling until they could get a review from the Workers' Compensation Board if the wife’s claim was compensable. The request was denied and the request of the carrier for settlement was granted. The fund appealed to the Board stating the wife would have not been awarded benefits because the death was not related to the injury sustained in October 1973. The Board’s decision was that the fund lacked standing to raise the issue. A Queens Probate Lawyer got information that the fund appealed.

When the case was already with the Appellate Court, the court said they agreed with the Board that reversing the decision will allow the Fund to reopen the primary issues related to the compensability of an injured or deceased employee's claim. The Fund’s stand is the causal relationship between the death and the work-related accident. The legal idea of the Workers' Compensation Law says a New York Workers Compensation Lawyer is to hire employers to hire permanently handicapped people. This is because of the reimbursement they are offered if they compensation to a work-related accident. The court said the representative of the fund only has standing in the proceedings when the employer claims for such compensations are being heard not when there is a claim from the employer. The conspiracy of an employee and employer is averted with the employer not being able to get reimbursement for the first two years of benefits.

If the court gives the Fund authority to take proceedings on the primary issues of compensability, even after the benefits have already been granted to the wife will generate two results that are inconsistent with the purpose of the Workers' Compensation Law. One of the results will be to re-open the claim of the wife that will be in violation of the provision “to avoid extended medical controversies and delays in benefits.” The other one is for the employer to not be able to claim reimbursement, but will also not be able to get the money back from the wife. A Nassau County Probate Lawyer mentioned this will have a negative effect on the employers’ motivation to hire handicapped employees. This weakens the primary purpose of the law. Another argument of the Fund is to deny them of the chance to contest is breach of due process. This they did not raise with the Board so it did not become part of the review. Since the Fund was created by Legislature and is doing governmental function on behalf of the State, they are not able to assert rights under the Constitution against the State. The decision of the Board was affirmed without costs.

People often think that when making demands for compensation with regard to a work-related accident, they do not need a lawyer. This may have been harmful to their claims. Skilled legal counsel make sure that your claims are protected even after you get the benefits.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates will fight for your rights to benefits not only from the employers and insurance companies that neglect their obligation in providing compensation. Whether you have an estate litigation matter, or have suffered injury because of the actions of another, we are here to help. We handle claims from all over New York and Long Island. If you have encountered a legal problem, you can contact us online or at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW. We also have offices all over New York.

Laurel G. Ellis 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, Florence. In the will, it gave 50% of the remaining estate after taxes and fees to Mrs. Ellis daughter and the remainder is divided equally between her sons, John and Richard. 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 Mrs. Ellis' husband died the sons’ relationship with their mother got worse and with her daughter better. There was even a letter sent by John to her mother that accused Florence of scheming to distance Mrs. Ellis from her sons. This was in March 1980. He even went as far as demand to have the old will reinstated and that Mrs. Ellis should not help Florence 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. A New York Probate Lawyer said John threatened to file a court case if what he wants is not done. In an undated letter to his brother Richard, he said the "estate would be in court so long that Florence 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 Florence. 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 Florence. The information a New York Probate Lawyer 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 testatrix died in June 1994, July 1994 the Preliminary letters were already issued. September of the same year, John and Richard had started proceedings questioning Florence’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 Florence 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 Lawyers expressed that the Supreme Court had dismissed the case after a motion was filed by Florence and her husband.

It was only by September 1996 that John and Richard withdrew their 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.”

Florence, 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. 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 Mrs. Ellis. The brothers argued that the contest was never filed so the terrorem clause was not violated. John also sated 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 Florence. 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 Mrs. Ellis 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.

Emotions are usually high when it comes to dealing with a family member’s last will and testament. Not just because they feel they should have gotten more but sometimes due to spite for the other beneficiary. An Estate Lawyer is a person who can protect you from the actions of people who act because of ill feeling. They will make sure that the desire of the decedent is the one that is adhered to.

If you would need to schedule a consultation with Brooklyn Probate Lawyers regarding any case in New York or Long Island, you can call 1-800 NY - NY- LAW. Stephen Bilkis & Associates have the resources, and their lawyers have the patience and the care, however long the case may take to get you what is rightfully yours. We can schedule you in any of our offices in New York.

Bessie Schlanger 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 Sarah Pasternack. 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 Ms. Schlanger said the other beneficiaries have received their legacies.

The answer given by the executor of Ms. Pasternack’s estate is that Ms. Schlanger in not entitled to be paid because she violated the terrorem clause of the last will and testament. It 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 Ms. Schlanger violated in two ways. She tried to have Ms. Pasternack 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, a Nassau County Probate Lawyer maintains, can be considered as a violation to the terrorem clause.

In the conclusion of the competency hearing of Ms. Pasternack, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case. The claim was that the competency hearing was to discredit any will that will be executed by Ms. Pasternack 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. Suffolk County Probate Lawyers found out that son of Ms. Schlanger, Michael Schlanger, 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 Ms. Schlanger and her son in contesting the probate of the case.

In a letter submitted by Ms. Schlanger, 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 Ms. Schlanger really did the said act as it can only be determined by a hearing. 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.

A scrupulous legal counsel would plan all actions by a beneficiary who would want to get what should be for them. They would know from the start what actions they would take and what consequences may arise if it is done. They would have prepared for such consequences or avoided them.

For sounds legal guidance, speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Our lawyers ensure that before they make a step with you regarding your concerns they have already checked on everything. You can get a free consultation for any case in New York or Long Island by calling 1-800 NY - NY- LAW.

MBIA Insurance Corporation (MBIA) filed a motion in limine for the court to allow MBIA to use statistical sampling to be able to present evidence for fraud and breach of contract and also to prove damages against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp. and Countrywide Financial Corp. (collectively Countrywide). A motion in limine is a request for a judge to rule if evidence may or may not be introduced in a trial. This can be done before or during a trial. Countrywide opposed this motion. A New York Probate Lawyer said that this is usually done to make sure that a jury will not see a possibly damaging evidence.

On September 27, 2010, a hearing was held to examine the evidence. MBIA presented an expert witness in the person of statistician Charles D. Cowan, Ph.D. Dr. Cowan gave testimony as to his proposed method of sampling the fifteen residential mortgage-backed securitizations (RMBS), which is the issue. The court requested that the different groups submit additional arguments on October 13, 2010. The requested that these opinions be delivered by letter.

One of the motions of the defendant is that the petition was premature. A Long Island Probate Lawyers mentioned that the court in this case did not set time limits with the motions in limine. Although MBIA presented this very early in the trial, it is legal and timely. The defendants, Countrywide, as well contends that legal and factual issues prevent the decision regarding MBIAs appeal. Countrywide says that there are disputed issues that must be settled first before the use of sampling. They stated that with the granting of the motion of MBIA, the court would improperly resolve legal questions that have not yet been fully discussed by the parties in court.

The court agrees that the other issues need to be resolved but the defendant, Countrywide, is not able to present any basis that the current listed issues have a link with the current motion. Countrywide does not present how the resolution or the non-resolution of the issues affects the sample. An additional argument is that MBIA was not able to exhibit how the sampling will be useful in the hearing. Countrywide was claiming that MBIA did not present anything that shows sampling can prove fraud and breach of contract and also to prove damages.

New York Law uses a general acceptance test to test a reliability and admissibility of an expert testimony where the sampling will ultimately work with. They ask if the presented scientific evidence is unusual. This is not the case for sampling as it has been used multiple times in different case tried in court. The next test is if it is accepted by the scientific community. Sampling has a widely spread acceptance in the scientific community. They use it with a variety of things to prove and disprove. The last is if the sampling proposed is reliable. MBIA has presented that for the sampling that they will do, there will only be a 5% margin of error. There will also be different variables that will be considered including delinquency status. Westchester County Probate Lawyers found out that the court decided that the statistical sampling may be used in a trial as it passed the general acceptance test. With this, the court also states that it is not the only way that the parties can present evidence. They also say that they are not saying that the statistical method is perfect and cannot be challenged. Countrywide presented valid disputes, which at the time the court says are premature.

In the decision of the court, it says that granting the motion in limine may save all parties from a long litigation time. It also does not compromise any of the parties’ interest. The court finds no prejudice in the sampling method. MBIA may present their evidence as they choose as the burden of proof is with them and Countrywide can challenge these evidence. The court permits evidence that will be the result of the sampling method. It is not endorsing the method as it should still convince the trier of fact, which may be a jury or a judge. The court considers sampling as a method to get evidence and not the evidence itself.

In cases like this were proving fault and liability may be taken from other people, it is always better to use different methods of gathering evidence. A skilled lawyer knows this. They think outside of the box to prove your case, and they also make sure that the court knows that these techniques may be applied under the law in their presentation.

Whether you have a contractual dispute, or are involved in a estate litigation matter, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. We have exceptional lawyers who will be able to present your case suitably and accurately. To contact us, you can walk in any of our offices, check us online or call 1-800 NY - NY- LAW. We handle cases from New York and Long Island.

A proponent of the will of Lina G. Shapiro, petitioned the court at the foot a probate decree 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 will contest. 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 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 executed by Ms. Shapiro dated April, 22, 1958, she 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. A Manhattan Probate Lawyer 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 Ms. Shapiro purchased $120,000 of stock from her daughter’s husband. The husband then questioned the sale saying that Ms. Shapiro misrepresented the value of the stocks. The daughter’s husband insisted on attempting to interrogate Ms. Shapiro, 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 that Ms. Shapiro died there was already great hostility between her, and her daughter whom she disinherited.

According to a Queens Probate Lawyer, the court then found that the 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.

When dealing with hostility, especially from family, sometimes you cannot help but match it with your own anger. This is where you know you really need a levelheaded legal counsel. When your emotions are high, they will be the voice of reason that will guide you on what you will need to do.

In New York and Long Island, Stephen Bilkis & Associates have skilled lawyers who can help. They are not only levelheaded but also meticulous when it comes to the case that they are handling. They know how to present your position in the best light so it will be easily understood by the courts, and you get the results you want. You can get a free consultation at 1-800 NY - NY- LAW.

Joseph Alexander died November 23, 1975, leaving his adopted son, Ronald Alexander. After the probate of his will, his son filed a petition contesting the amount given to charities as in excess percentage amount allowed by law. Executors were placed to check if the claim was valid, and the courts were asked to determine the effect of the ‘no contest’ clause of the will.

In his will, he gave all his properties, a flat in Switzerland and $25,000 per year to his son. In the event that his son dies before the end of the trust then the remaining amount will be put back to his estate.

Joseph Alexander also included in the will that in his lifetime, he had provided his son loans. He had paid indebtedness acquired by his son from other people. He expressly states in his last will and testament, from what a New York Probate Lawyer gathered, that if his son directly or indirectly oppose the probate of his will, Ronald Alexander will not getting any part of his estate and will only get $1 per annum.

The contest of the charitable bequest, according to the executors had no standing, because he will not receive any pecuniary benefit if the contest was successful. The executors cited the Cairo case where the grandson was expressly disinherited. Although, there was another case that was reconsidered by the Court of Appeals, which was Eckhart, this case is more similar to the Cairo case.

In this case, the will specifically state the loans and payments the testator has made for his son. According to a Nassau County Probate Lawyer, the executors also were pushing the ‘no contest’ clause of the will. The court also does not favor the ‘no contest’ clause. The Court of Appeals has held that the challenge to the validity of an excessive charitable gift cannot result to have a person disinherited. So the filing of the case is not a violation to the terrorem clause.

According to Brooklyn Probate Lawyers, he law still maintains that if the testators wish is expressly to disinherit a relative, then it will be upheld. New York Estate Lawyer said that in this case, Joseph Alexander only explicitly stated that if his son contests the probate, then he will forfeit his share in the will. The son did not contest the probate. In was within the probate that the son expressed his concern on the amount of the bequest to charity. The question is if he will get monetary compensation if the contest is successful. This was determined to be missing. Even if the contest is successful as per the will, his son still gets the fixed amount per annum and the flat in Switzerland.

The law has a different treatment for children born within wedlock and outside wedlock when it comes to claims for support from a deceased parent. Out of wedlock minors are given support in the amount determined by Surrogate court up until the age of 21. This is taken from the deceased parents’ estate. This is typically not greater than what was determined before the parent died as their support. These are not available minors born within wedlock.

Ronald Alexander was not to be disinherited because of the case he filed to have the gift to charity checked as may be more than the half of the estate. He is still entitled to his legacies whatever the outcome of the contest is.

Determining how the ‘no contest’ clause applies in a will contest action can sometimes e tricky. You will need to have a sharp Will Contest Lawyer to assist you for it. Some people may think that contesting a will should not be done, but it is not always the case.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates have a legal team who know that contesting wills can be difficult, let alone contesting wills that have ‘no contest’ clause. They make sure you do not lose anything if the will is contested. If you need assistance, come see us anywhere in New York or Long Island, you can get them at 1-800 NY - NY- LAW. We will give you a free consulation.

Plaintiffs filed a motion against New York State Department of Taxation and Finance for their Statewide Offset Program. A New York Probate Lawyer says that the plaintiffs are taxpayers who are saying that in allowing the offsets, the defendants have violated their rights to notice under the due process and their right to oppose the debts where they offset the refunds. They allege that the program allows the offsetting of their income tax refund to any debt owed by the taxpayer to the New York State Office of Temporary Disability Assistance (OTDA). The plaintiffs are asking for relief and a class certification.

The Court in determining the granting of the motion of the plaintiff’s for class certification determined that issues and facts that are common to the wished-for class outweighs the concerns that are specific to the individual class members. Queens Probate Lawyers mentioned that the court found the question of the violation of OTDA to the due-process clauses of the Constitutions of the United States and New York by certifying debts to DTF without giving plaintiffs' adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to contest the underlying debts is common to all the members of the proposed class.

The general position of the defendant is that the plaintiffs would not be entitled to recover any damages. They would not be compensated for the government’s violation of their due-process rights if the violation is not the reason for the plaintiff’s losses. The plaintiffs were not able to show evidence of the loss that they are claiming to have incurred because of not having the opportunity t contest the main debt. The court agrees with the defendant’s position on the compensation not being granted if the loss is not a direct result of the violation. The plaintiffs though, ask for the offsets plus interest. A Nassau County Estate Lawyer stated that the opposition indicates that if the opportunity to contest the debt is granted, each plaintiff will have to prove his or her individual case.

The court usually decides on the cases against the government based on previous instances and decisions. In this case, the harm is not perceived but is claimed to have already happened. Under these conditions, a precedent in the favor of an individual plaintiff will not matter in the remaining plaintiffs' cases. The petitioners asked for a leave in court so that they can amend their complaints. The court states that the defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendments and there will be no new allegations to be added. The defendants also have failed to show that the amendments are without merit. With the four month limitation period for the plaintiff’s case, the defendants have not revealed any dispute saying that the claims are not timely.

Sometimes you will be a casualty not only of an individual or a company that has not followed the rule of law when it comes to dealings with you. You may also experience this with government agencies. If you feel that you have suffered because a government office has not followed due process when dealing with your concerns, you need legal counsel that can protect your rights under the constitution. They will be able to grant relief or compensation where it is due. It may be individually or as a group complaining.

In your regular dealings with government offices, if you feel like they have neglected to follow the rules, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for guidance. Whether you are contending with a governmental agency, need estate planning advice, or are contesting a will, we will ensure that your rights are protected. Come in to any of our conveniently located offices throughout New York for a free consultation.

In the mater of the last will and testament of Clara Louise Bonesteel, a petition was filed with the Appellate Court with in relation to the decision made in a jury trial. The last will and testament was disputed as not being a valid will for the decedent. The jury found that the last will and testament is legitimate and said that it can be entered into probate.

The case that is filed with the court is with regard to the challengers of the will to be able to get a copy of the stenographic minutes of the trial at the expense of the estate. The law states that a copy of the stenographer’s minutes may be supplied to the contestant and charged to the expense of the estate if they can determine that the contest was made in good faith. It does not matter if the contest was successful or unsuccessful as long as it was made in good faith. In the case of Byron’s will, the court decided that good faith is not to be established before the contest as it will promote prolonged trials because the person contesting the will is assured that the costs will be shouldered by the decedent’s estate. To determine good faith after the trial is a way to ensure that the contest is already in good faith because one will bear the cost otherwise.

In law, there is also a rule of stare decisis. This states that any court lower than the Appellate Court should follow the decision made already by the Appellate Court with regard to the same issues. This applies to other judges even if not from a lower court, but of course not a higher one. In the case regarding Harned’s will, the Surrogate Wingate of Kings County followed the decision of the Appellate Division of the First Department, there was no differing decision from his own Appellate Division in his department. A New York Probate Lawyer mentioned that the decisions of other Special Terms are not controlling. The judge at special term has the duty to follow a decision made by the Appellate Court of another division pending the decision of his own Appellate Division of the Court of Appeals offers a different ruling.

In this case, the court’s ruling is in favor of the proponent of the will. The Appellate Court upholds that and believes the same thing. It is also its opinion with all the particulars of the case at hand that the person contesting the will acted in good faith. There is no case from the Court of Appeals or from Appellate Court, Third Division, which contradicts the view expressed in relation to the Comerford’s will. The judge has said, from information acquired by Brooklyn Probate Lawyers, the counsel has not cited anything to counter the view on the Comerford’s will and even in his own research, he found out the same. In the Comerford’s trial, the decision of the Surrogate court to deny a contestant to charge the estate with the cost of the copy of the trial’s minutes was reversed on appeal. This being considered, the judge is bound to the same conclusion. The petition of the contestant was granted.

There may be fear of incurring more cost in contesting a will, but as the court has shown in this case as long as you can prove in the trial that the contest was done in good faith the cost will be granted to the estate. If you are unsure as to what shows this, Bronx Probate Lawyers will be able to help you determine how you can show it in court. They would not want you to give up your issue just because you do not know how to present it or if is not sure if it is valid.

If you have a will contest, or other probate matter, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. They will assess your case from the information that you provide and ensure that your rights are protected. If you have a question regarding any case in New York and Long Island, you can make an appointment with us through the internet or by calling 1-800 NY - NY- LAW. We also have offices all over New York.