New York Probate and Estate Administration Blog

According to reports from a surrogate’s court, a decedent was survived by his wife, and two children from a previous marriage. In his last will and testament, he had chosen his wife to act as estate administrator. Upon his death, the will was submitted to probate court. The court named the wife as the estate administrator in the letter of testamentary.

Before the decedent’s death and months after the wife was accorded as estate administrator, she exercised her functions. It was asserted to be true that she made several transactions which resulted to lessen the funds of the contested estate. The wife have made repeated fund transfers from an alleged joint account to her own account; paid her personal bills and expenses thru multiple on-line transfers from decedent’s personal accounts in a certain bank; and checks payable to her decedent’s husband were signed, endorsed and deposited to her account.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that the decedent’s children, with the help of their probate lawyers filed a case contesting the earlier decision of the court in naming the wife as the appointed executor. They reasoned out that she was unfit to carry out the terms of the contested will by virtue of dishonesty, by not providing their needs, by shallow understanding of good will and by thoughtlessly or carelessly expending of their funds. They asked the court to appoint decedent’s son as the executor instead of the wife. They submitted to the court a written document of the decedent’s therapist. The therapist testified under oath and sustained the allegations of the decedent’s children. The estate litigation lawyers further make clear that the case under litigation was not a subject for time consuming dispute. Children’s funds were at stake. The wife was guilty of a series of acts-any one of which, the court has the authority to give an order to remove the wife as executor in an earliest time.

In deciding the case, the court was certain that the wife mixed the money of her husband with her funds. The money involved was held in trust fund for the children. The probate court firmly resolved that the lavish withdrawals, combined with repeated dishonesty and self-serving statements were comprised actions. Such actions will cause danger or risk to the children’s funds. Her conduct was enough ground and justification for her immediate removal from the office without a hearing and the preliminary letters issued to her be cancelled and be without effect.

Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said that the wife, being a lawyer entered for herself a motion of reargument to the court to prove the allegations against her to be false and erroneous by stating that; first, the court’s determination of her conduct endangered the safety of the estate was characterized by error; second, the children’s claim that the estate in litigation was in danger of risk was without valid basis; third, the bringing in of the decedent’s money to her own account, the repeated on-line withdrawals and dishonest statements were of no merits. The reasons behind her actions were to continue the decedent’s previous practice to deposit his money to the estate bank. They have not opened a joint account, but instead opened an individual and separate bank account. The decedent’s money was for his two children to inherit upon his death. The withdrawals from the decedent’s account were made to pay his hospital expenses, household bills, and compensation of her household errands while her husband was in the hospital.

Bronx Probate Lawyers said that the children with their estate lawyers opposed the arguing over again, of a motion made in court by the wife. They were satisfied with the court’s decision in their favor. The court correctly and intelligently interpreted the contested will. The decision was based on undisputed facts and of general importance. The lawyers argued that the acts admitted by the wife as just and proper were grave in manner and extent. It will tremendously destroy the lives of decedent’s children.

Losing the funds in trust under the control of an executor involved in a lawsuit for her wrongful and deceitful action will make tremendous negative impact on the decedent’s children. New York Estate Administration lawyers will stand by you and help see you through your case. New York Estate Litigation lawyers can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its skilled legal team, have convenient offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. We can provide you with advice to guide you through situations where estate is dissipated because of another's intentional deceit. Without skilled legal counsel, you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.

The appellants of a probate case have filed for an objection against the original ruling of probate by the court. The court did not accept the objections of the appellants.

According to the objections of the appellants, they asserted that the surrogate court should have used its authority to decide on the matter of estate’s original probate due to the fact that another court already had previous jurisdiction over it. The appellants further argue that the original order for probate had already been settled in a foreign country. Such foreign proceeding was concluded by the court as possibly replicated in the city.

The decedent’s will was executed in the city in which the decedent, also known as the testator, has lived. That will and testament revokes all the previous wills that have been written by the testator. The will contains instructions on the funeral expenses and debt payments. The remaining assets after the previous expenses are deducted shall be awarded to the former wife of the testator and another party. The male respondent of this court proceeding was identified as the executor of the will.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that the former wife and the daughters of the testator have filed objections. The appellants have declared that during the time of the testator’s death, he remains to be a resident of a foreign country. According to the appeal the testator executed his will in that foreign country by virtue of the proceeding.

However, based on the statement of the executor, majority of the testator’s properties are located within this city and not in the foreign residence. The documents presented have limited information regarding foreign law and proceedings.

Bronx Probate Lawyers said that the court received a certification from the foreign country that contains vital information. The document indicates that the testator was a resident of this country. The foreign court has also indicated in the document that an estate hearing was going on. Under that proceeding in foreign court, the executor and proponent of the case had rejected his rights.

In the same document, the foreign court also certifies that the daughters of the testators have filed petitions for unconditional declaration of acceptance. Due to the release of this information, the respondent of the case has informed the foreign court about the original probate of will. However, there was no current record of the will being sent to the foreign court. The certification has also indicated that the proceeding regarding the estate in question will no longer continue.

The court also notes that the appellant’s legal counsel has obtained a copy of a letter written to the respondent by the foreign court commissioner. The letter contained instructions that the daughters of the testator were authorized to manage the estate of the deceased in that country. The letter has named the testator’s daughters as the administrators of the estate.

The court has requested for a notarized copy of the letter. If the document is indeed valid, the will would revoke the past testament. The next step of that instance would have to the filing of a legacy case. In that scenario, the daughters of the testator would have been declared as the rightful owner of one fourth of the testator’s profits from the estate.

Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said that on further review of the information and estate law, the court has found the letter of the justice commissioner to the respondent as evidence that the testator preferred to proceed with estate litigation in the city. However, it was also noted that the testator identified this city as his place of residence. The court ruled that the proceeding held in the foreign country was brought to the city in good faith. Thus, the court has affirmed its earlier order.

Lawsuits can be time-consuming and stressful. If you need legal assistance, a New York Probate Lawyer will help you file your objections for probate. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for more inquiries.

Our legal counsel will become your asset in court. To talk to Stephen Bilkis & Associates at their offices and secure a personal meeting.

The guardian of the decedent’s estate has filed for a petition and requested the court to allow the probate of the alleged will. The petition also contained that a fee should be established by the court.
The testator of the will and testament has passed away. He left his wife and 3 children his estate. The widow was named the guardian as stated in the decedent’s will. The widow at that time is afflicted with dementia. The two older sons of the testator were also named as co-guardians for their mother.

The two sons requested a probate of a specific will. A few months later, they filed another probate on another will and requested that the previous motion be denied by the court.

The first in will in question contained provisions that the testator’s tangible assets be awarded to his wife. His older sons were also named as the executors of that will. The other testament in question allegedly contained specifications that the personal assets and residences of the testator will be given to his wife. This particular will have named the wife as the trustee and executor. The two sons in this will were named as the alternate executors and trustees.

The court has reviewed the background of the testator. The decedent in this case was tax lawyer. His law career was spent mostly with a corporation whom he has shares of common stock. If the first will questioned above will be accepted by the court on probate, the widow of the testator will not get anything since the stocks belong to the sons. If the probate will be accepted on the second will, the wife will receive her share of the proceeds. There will be no need to pay for estate tax. In the second will, the wife will get her share of the trust.

Brooklyn Probate Lawyers explained that the court is tasked to decide on whether to allow the second will to be admitted for probate when it doesn’t find anything wrong with the first will. The petitioners in this case have cited a prior case concerning a remedy given by the court. In that previous case, the court had allowed the parties to abandon a proceeding concerning the matter of probate for a second instrument. The court also accepted to probate the first instrument in that case.

Back to the current case, the guardian has asserted the probate of the second instrument since this will be in the best interest of the mother and wife of the testator. If the first will is subjected to probate, the estate will be taxable, according to a New York Probate Lawyer.

Based on the report of the guardian, the court gave authority to the guardian to consent to the probate of the second will in behalf of the wife with dementia. When the guardian has submitted their consent, the second testament will be subjected to probate.

Regarding the fee of the guardian, the court is responsible for the approval of legal expenses to be charged to the property. The court also has the discretion to decide on a reasonable amount as payment of fees.

The court will evaluate the legal expenses of the guardian based on different criteria. The court will have to consider the complexity of the arguments, the time spent in preparing the case, the reputation of the lawyer and experience. In order to arrive at the best possible amount, the court will have to decide and balance its decision by evaluating all the factors involved.

The guardian had presented the amount to be paid as legal fees. Bronx Probate Lawyers explained that court has agreed to this amount since the guardian has meets the criteria.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates can assist you in preparing your estate litigation. Contact our office for a consultation.

The appellants of a probate case have filed for an objection against the original ruling of probate by the court. The court did not accept the objections of the appellants.

According to the objections of the appellants, they asserted that the surrogate court should have used its authority to decide on the matter of estate’s original probate due to the fact that another court already had previous jurisdiction over it. The appellants further argue that the original order for probate had already been settled in a foreign country. Such foreign proceeding was concluded by the court as possibly replicated in the city.

The decedent’s will was executed in the city in which the decedent, also known as the testator, has lived. That will and testament revokes all the previous wills that have been written by the testator. The will contains instructions on the funeral expenses and debt payments. The remaining assets after the previous expenses are deducted shall be awarded to the former wife of the testator and another party. The male respondent of this court proceeding was identified as the executor of the will.

Accoridng to a New York Probate Lawyer, the former wife and the daughters of the testator have filed objections. The appellants have declared that during the time of the testator’s death, he remains to be a resident of a foreign country. According to the appeal the testator executed his will in that foreign country by virtue of the proceeding.

However, based on the statement of the executor, majority of the testator’s properties are located within this city and not in the foreign residence. The documents presented have limited information regarding foreign law and proceedings.

Bronx Probate Lawyers said that the court received a certification from the foreign country that contains vital information. The document indicates that the testator was a resident of this country. The foreign court has also indicated in the document that an estate hearing was going on. Under that proceeding in foreign court, the executor and proponent of the case had rejected his rights.
In the same document, the foreign court also certifies that the daughters of the testators have filed petitions for unconditional declaration of acceptance. Due to the release of this information, the respondent of the case has informed the foreign court about the original probate of will. However, there was no current record of the will being sent to the foreign court. The certification has also indicated that the proceeding regarding the estate in question will no longer continue.

The court also notes that the appellant’s legal counsel has obtained a copy of a letter written to the respondent by the foreign court commissioner. The letter contained instructions that the daughters of the testator were authorized to manage the estate of the deceased in that country. The letter has named the testator’s daughters as the administrators of the estate.
The court has requested for a notarized copy of the letter. If the document is indeed valid, the will would revoke the past testament. The next step of that instance, according to a Staten Island Probate Lawyer, would have to be the filing of a legacy case. In that scenario, the daughters of the testator would have been declared as the rightful owner of one fourth of the testator’s profits from the estate.

Upon further review of the information and estate law, the court has found the letter of the justice commissioner to the respondent as evidence that the testator preferred to proceed with estate litigation in the city. However, it was also noted that the testator identified this city as his place of residence. The court ruled that the proceeding held in the foreign country was brought to the city in good faith. Thus, the court has affirmed its earlier order.

Lawsuits can be time-consuming and stressful. If you need legal assistance, a New York Probate Lawyer will help you file your objections for probate. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for more inquiries.

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

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

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

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

Assets and properties including cash and jewelries are all testament of your hard work and challenges in life. It would be devastatingly difficult if for some reasons all the fruits of your hard work will be taken away from you or your loved ones whom you chose to be your beneficiary. Remember that Bronx Probate Lawyers will make sure that your assets are well taken care of as well as your loved ones and other people and or entities you have chosen.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates are ready to help you in your estate cases. You’ll be glad to know that together with their legal team, their offices are now easily accessible all throughout the Metropolitan area of New York. They are ready to serve you and are willing to answer your legal questions.

This is a case regarding the Estate of Julia Eckart and the claims of her children regarding each of their shares in the inheritance. According to reports given to a New York Probate Lawyer, the children of the deceased filed a case against the last will and testament of their mother because of the insufficiency of their inherited amount against that of which will go to other people, entities and charities.

Unbelievably, according to Brooklyn Probate Lawyers, Julia Eckart left each of her children the amount of $50 each. According to her will, she also left no other cash or property to the rest of her surviving relatives. That is why the surviving children, Charlotte Anna Eckart, Frank Darmody and Frank Darmody filed a case in court that says that their mother made an excessive contribution to charity and that they were left with nothing except for the $50 each that were provided to them by her last will and testament. The rest of Julia Eckart’s estate, including her real and personal property have been assigned to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, which is a non-profit corporation in Brooklyn, New York.

Reports that reached Bronx Probate Lawyers, the court thoroughly examined the case according to the petition filed by the children. There was also a similar case before when a grandson was expressly disinherited on the will that was left by his grandfather. This was the Cairo case which was a long and hardly fought battle in court which now became a source of other similar cases as well. But according to the court, there should be two elements present in a case before it can be ruled as excessive charity. First, there should really be the intension to give too much of her estate to charity. Second, there is the intention to disinherit immediate family members like the spouse or children by the one executing the last Will and testament.

In this case, it was proven that there was truly intent to give too much to charity because practically the Bible Watch Tower became Julia Eckart’s primary beneficiary. As for the second factor which is the intent to expressly disinherit her children, the court studied this angle carefully. Although there was a $50 inheritance, it is not the amount determined by law to which a person will already survive on a daily basis. That is why, after a long discussion and trial, the court was able to determine that the two factors were present to make this case an excessive charity.

The court will determine further the exact condition of the estate, its value and everything that will affect their ruling. They will do the proper accounting before determining the fair amount that will be given to Julia Eckart’s children as well as to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

Losing your property and everything that you have worked hard for all your life is truly devastating not only to you but your family as well. Stephen Bilkis and Associates will stand by you all throughout the process to make sure that your case is well taken care of. They will work for you and your loved ones all the way.

You will also be happy to know that Stephen Bilkis and Associates together and their legal team have already established offices all over the metropolitan areas of New York. Our team will carefully assess your case to make sure that you understand everything that is involved. Without skilled legal counsel, you could lose your properties and much more. We are working for your convenience.

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.

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.

With an Estate amounting to almost two million dollars, E. Louise Grupp died in September 25, 1992. The will that was given for probate was only dated two weeks before Mr. Grupp died. The will was dated September 11, 1992. The executors who wear named in the will were Joan E. Maloney, Esq., and Eleanor G. Dunn. There was an older will filed with the court that was dated July 9, 1992. Interested parties had examined the witnesses to the will.

The will dated September 11, 1992 sets up the $300,000 trust for Ms. Nitterauer and places another $150,000 in trust for her sons. Aside from that she gets personal effects and the testator’s house. From what Brooklyn Probate Lawyers gathered, the remaining part of the estate of the deceased goes to the Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company as trustee for the Buffalo Foundation to be held as a perpetual charitable fund in memory of Mrs. Grupp and her late husband. Nine charities are assigned as income beneficiaries of fund assets in various percentages totaling 95% of net income, with the recipients of the remaining 5% to be selected by the Foundation. If the foundation fails to qualify as a charity or any of the other named organizations then the trustee will select from qualifying charities.

A terrorem clause was also in this will. That if anyone contests the probate or any part of the will, their interest will be forfeited, and it will be treated like that person died before the testator.

The court had said that they have to determine if that will dated September 11 will be treated as the will for Mrs. Grupp. According to a New York Probate Lawyer, it is the Surrogate court that determines the validity of a will. The will is not admitted if there is the lack of capacity, lack of due execution or undue influence. The courts typically refuse to address the ‘no contest’ clause before the probate. The court will interview the will witnesses and the lawyer. The Surrogate Court determined that is the will for Mrs. Grupp.

The terrorem clause was not very clear. This gives the petitioner an additional risk. It does not say specifically if all the people in the will be disinherited or only the person who opposed the will. A Bronx Probate Lawyers said that the court had good and compelling reason to deviate from the Davis rule. There were several differences with the Davies case. There were also concerns that the most-recent will is totally different from the planning goals of the testatrix who was to save on estate taxes to increase the legacies to certain individuals. The court was moving towards construction. In this way, they can ascertain the intent of the testator as to his will. It must be in the will itself.

Mrs. Grupp had intended for the charities to benefit as it is also showing on the prior will. As with the ‘no contest’ clause, they determined that if the deceased really wanted for all parties to be deprived, then she would have added words to that effect. The court is concerned about if Mrs. Grupp wanted even the charities to forfeit if the will is questioned. The court determined that the ‘no contest’ clause will not include the charities if in case the will was questioned as in previous will it has always been part and always first.

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

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

Charles J. Tate, acting as the administrator of the estate of Nicholas C. Tate filed a case for gross negligence, malpractice, non-feasance, misfeasance, malfeasance and breach of fiduciary relationship against John J. McQuade as the guardian ad litem, or the court-appointed guardian of Nicholas’ interest with his son’s will. He is seeking money damages for money and also for punitive damages.

After Nicholas’ son died in March 31, 1971, the court-appointed Mr. McQuade as his guardian because of a disability and Mr. Tate was 90 years old at that time. As the administrator, Mr. Tate says that Mr. McQuade failed to contest the son’s will for excessive gift to charity. Whereby if successful would have increased Nicholas’ share in his son’s estate. The son left some personal property to his mother and the rest of the estate to the University of Detroit for educational purposes. This was dated and verified in September 16, 1971. The mother filed her objections to this will through her own counsel as an excessive gift.

The mother died while the probate for the son’s will was still on-going. Before she died, she had set up a trust for Nicholas her husband, and the rest was to be given to Mr. McQuade as the guardian ad litem. He was also named as the executor of the mother’s will. Though a lawyer, Mr. McQuade was not the one who drafted the mother’s will.

In September 20, 1972 there was a written agreement of settlement by the executor of the son’s estate, the executor of the mother’s estate Mr. McQuade and Mr. Tate as the administrator. This settled the objections to the son’s will and the mother’s will. Part of the settlement was that estate of the father will have a share in the settlement of the contest on the son’s will. They were going to give $25,000 to Nicholas’ estate.

Mr. Tate’s position was that Mr. McQuade did not take the necessary steps to make sure the father gets part of the son’s estate when it clearly showed that the will was to deprive the ward. A Manhattan Estate Lawyer mentioned that Mr. Tate further said that with Mr. McQuade being a beneficiary in the mother’s will and the guardian of Nicholas with the son’s will created a conflict of interest. This was not supported though because the mother had gotten advice from a separate counsel, and the will was drafted by the same lawyer who filed the contest on the son’s will. The father was the only beneficiary of the will. It also does not show that Mr. McQuade knew of what the mother had in mind for her last will and testament because it was only finalized three days before she died by a different lawyer.

Bronx Probate Lawyers said that the court determined from research that duties of the guardian ad litem do not include representation to contest an excessive charitable or educational gift in a probate proceeding of a will. The court also stated that there is no clear rule as to the right of contest when it comes to an incompetent or an infant. It is not specified that a guardian can make the personal choice to do so. It is laudable that a guardian asks the Surrogate court for assistance in the contest but not required. The filing of a contest of an excessive gift can also be done within six months from the issuance of the letters.

The case was dismissed, and the court found that there should be no action to be taken. This may seem like Nicholas got the bad end of a stick. A trustworthy New York Probate Lawyer could have made sure that his interest was covered in both wills. This happens a lot to people when they do not have counsel.

Continue reading "After Nicholas’ son died in March 31, 1971, the court-appointed Mr. McQuade " »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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