New York Probate and Estate Administration Blog

A man filed a motion to withdraw a waiver and consent he did for the legal validation of his cousins will. And, this motion is opposed by the primary representative of the estate and the four charities who are the beneficiaries under certain instruction.

This happened five months after the death of his cousin, he did a waiver and consent; however, an attorney appeared for him a month after, and this is also the return date of the citation in this proceeding, and indicated that he wanted to withdraw his consent for the legal processing of validation of the will. The assets consists of personal property valued more than a million.

The instruction was done when his cousin was about 95 years old. The single page, two-sided tool is a downloadable legal form and does not appear to be attorney supervised. The opposite side of the form shows his shaky and weak signature, and the signature of the two witnesses. One of those witnesses now serves as a primary person appointed to perform the will and formerly served as one of legal guardians. Apparently, the other witness was an aide at the facility where she resided at the time she signed the instruction.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the man served objections to attest on all parties except the guardian, but the objections were not accepted for filing due to his waiver and consent to process the validation of his cousins will. Those proposed objections says that his cousin is lacked of capacity to make a will, the instruction made was not freely and voluntarily done. The signature, the instruction and its publication were obtained by fraud and unjustified influence, and the requirements about the law of appointment of guardian were not complied with at the time of implementation.

In his motion papers, he state that he is legally blind, possesses lower educational attainment and is ignorant of the law. He urges that he never received the letter containing the waiver and consent to attest and affidavit of heirship that was mailed to him by counsel to the primary representative, and that attorney never advised him of various rights or the import of the waiver and consent. He contends that at the time he did the waiver and consent, he was unaware that his mother's property was a share of his cousins belongings, he lacked any understanding of the procedure or consequences of the legal processing of validation, such as his right to object to the will and his right to counsel, and he did not understand that by executing the waiver and consent, he would forfeit the potential right of his mother's properties. Based on his conversations with counsel, at the time he received the waiver and consent, he believed that he was signing that document in order to expedite the process.

Manhattan Probate Lawyers said the primary representative oppose the motion asserting that, upon his receipt of the waiver and consent, the man called to discuss the family tree and the forms he received, and he never advised their attorney that he was blind or that anything was missing from the envelope mailed to him. The letter states that if the man had no objection to the processing of the distribution of the properties, it would expedite the process. The representative note that the man executed both the waiver and consent and the affidavit of heirship as requested.

The charities also oppose the motion stating that there is no clear and convincing evidence that the waiver and consent was the result of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation or misconduct or that there is any other basis for revocation, at the time that the man executed the waiver and consent, he was acting as the legally appointee of his mother's assets and should have known that the document he done would have a legal and binding effect.

Queens Probate Lawyers said in reply, the man annexes various documents and state that due to his blindness, he follows a strict procedure upon his receipt of documents, which is to scan them into his computer and use a closed circuit television to magnify their contents. As his computer does not contain a scanned citation, he did not receive it, and he only learned of it when his subsequently retained attorney obtained a copy. His attorney stressed that the waiver and consent was obtained through improper overreaching and misrepresentation and, in any event, it should be suspended for good cause in the interests of justice.

Based on records, in legal processing of validation of will. It may not be admitted unless the court is satisfied that its implementation was valid, even if no interested party files objections to its validity. Thus, where a person who applies for a motion with reasonable expedition seeks to withdraw a waiver and consent to attest, the application may be granted where the petitioner demonstrates some merit to the objection, a reasonable probability of success and the absence of prejudice to the other parties. Furthermore, the courts are more liberal in granting these applications where other parties have already filed objections, or it is apparent that they tend to file objections, or where the application is made very soon after the execution of the waiver and consent.

The proof on the motion and court filings demonstrate that the attest was served by mail on the man, and his waiver and consent was executed, the same date that preliminary letters issued. The court does not find any wrongdoing by the proponents' counsel in obtaining the waiver and consent. Nonetheless, the letter sent to the man by counsel indicates only that the process would be expedited as a result of his execution of the waiver and consent. In view of the man’s blindness and limited education, and the fact that he was not represented by counsel at the time he did the waiver and consent, the court credits his contention that he failed to fully understand the legal impact. Thereafter, he expeditiously obtained an attorney and sought to withdraw his waiver and consent prior to the admission of the will to verify. Without in any way passing on the ultimate outcome of a will contest, the documents annexed by the man and in court files demonstrate that, at this time, his proposed objections have merit and a reasonable probability of success. The proposed objections are similar or identical to the issues raised by the Public Administrator in the proceeding. As it appears that the Public Administrator will file objections in any event, this also militates in favor of granting the motion, and allowing the interposition of the man's objections creates no prejudice to the representative and the charities, which are in the same position they were in. Moreover, the court's paramount concern is to admit only valid wills to attest. Where, as here in a pre-probate context, one interested party as well as another non-interested party expresses genuine concern as to the validity of the instructions and its execution, as demonstrated by the documents submitted, the withdrawal of a waiver and consent to allow the interposition of objections must be permitted.

Accordingly, the motion is granted. The man shall serve and file his objections within 10 days after the entry of the order to be settled here on.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its legal team can help you to obtain what you really deserve. They will provide you assistance to things that you cannot understand. Ask for and be represented.

The issues being raised in this estate case have two aspects. One issue talks about the objection of probate on the last will and testament of the deceased. Another issue raised on the case was whether the main executor of the will had the right to request for discovery proceeding concerning the property owned by another party.

Before the writer of the will and testament passed away, he drafted an instrument which states that all his property should go to his niece. The niece named on the will becomes in effect the executor of the will.

A few months after the drafting of the first instrument, the decedent had allegedly turned over a deed of one of his real properties to another party other than his niece by marriage. However on the same day, the decedent drafted an instrument and identified it as his last will and testament. According to that instrument, it would revoke or reverse all wills drafted prior to the recent one. This includes the first draft that named his niece the sole executor of his estate.

In the recent will before the decedent pass away, he named the other party, the one who had the deed to his property, as an alternate beneficiary of all his assets. The different between the first and recent testament was the inclusion of the respondent as one of the beneficiaries.
The niece petitioned for a probate on the recent will executed by the deceased. The respondent had requested the surrogate court to change the date of the instrument to match the date in which she received the deed of the property from the then decedent. The niece objected to the execution of the second instrument.

According to a New York Probate Lawyer petitioner has been named the main executor of the testament. In this regard, the petitioner asserted that the respondent had in her possession cash, house furnishings, car and income from real property. The respondent refused to turn over the said assets belonging to the deceased.

The petitioner also indicated in her objection that the real property of the deceased was illegally acquired by the respondent on the same day the latest version of the will and testament was granted. A Manhattan Probate Lawyer said that in connection with the matter, the petitioner has also asked the court to inquire about the other properties that the respondent might still have that belonged to the deceased. The respondent has denied all the accusations made against her and challenged the petitioner that she had no probate case.

The law states that any individual who shows interest in the properties of the decedent will be affected when the will is subjected to probate. The interested person can object to this event. There is an exception to this provision in which the entitlement of property will not be revoked by another instrument. The same person will not be allowed to file any objection to the probate unless the court grants it.

In general, the niece in this case will not get anything from the estate if the will and testament of the deceased will be admitted to probate. The only exception to this law is when the same person is interested in a previously drafted will and the recent instrument is not admitted for probate while the recent one is accepted, that person will receive more from the properties in question.

Queens Probate Lawyers said that according to the provisions of the law, an individual cannot file for an objection if he is not the receiver or the distributee of the properties. Therefore, the court has decided to go on with the probate of the estate. The petitioner’s objections are also denied.

Legal counsel will help you in your will contest case whenever you need representation and legal advice. Get in touch with Stephen Bilkis & Associates for a consultation.

Visit Stephen Bilkis & Associates at their downtown offices for more information.

A couple executed a Joint Will that will make whoever is the survivor among them as the one to be given the entire property whether own individually or several and be the executor of the irrevocable Joint Will. The Joint Will further provided that whatever remained after the death of the survivor would be distributed to a trust, with equal shares of the trust to be allocated among their grandchildren and one of their children, their daughter. The Joint Will's terms state that it is forever binding, and may be revoked or modified only by a writing subscribed by both parties and executed with the formality of a Will.

Approximately 8 years after the execution of the Joint Will and after approximately 50 years of marriage, the couple was divorced by judgment dated April 6, 2001. Several months before, apparently in anticipation of the divorce, the couple reaffirmed the Joint Will by executing a Marital Settlement Agreement, the terms of which were incorporated into the divorce judgment. The agreement stated, in pertinent part, that neither party would attempt to revoke the Joint Will, and provided quit claim deeds granting sole title of their condominium to the husband and sole title of their other condominium to the Wife. No further action was taken by either the Wife or the husband regarding the Joint Will.

In 2006, the Wife established her 2006 Irrevocable Trust, the body of which was her condominium. The Wife and her son-in-law were named as the trustees.

The trust document states, in pertinent part, that upon the Wife’s death, its principal is to be distributed to such one or more persons out of a class composed of her former Husband and her descendants and spouses of the her descendants on such terms as the Wife may appoint by a Will hereafter executed specifically referring to this power of appointment.

According to a New York Probate Lawyer, the Wife nominally exercised the rights of the power of appointment of the trust document through a one-paragraph will, executed in 2007 will. The 2007 will stated that it was not intended to modify or revoke the Joint Will, which shall remain in full force and effect. Rather, its sole purpose was, pursuant to the power of appointment of the trust document, to provide for the trust to convey, upon her death, its corpus, the condominium, in equal shares to the her four children.

Following the Wife’s death, the Husband filed a petition for the probate of the Joint Will. In 2008, the Husband applied for preliminary letters as evidence to be issued to him, which the Surrogate's Court granted in an order on 2008. That same year, the Husband, as the preliminary executor of his former Wife’s property, commenced a turnover proceeding against, among others, his daughter and her Husband, seeking, to his son-in-law as trustee of the trust, to execute and deliver the deed to his former Wife’s condominium to the her properties.
In their answer to the Husband’s petition, the daughter and the son-in-law alleged, among other things, that the condominium was no longer a part of the properties, as a will is not effective until the death of the one who made it, and that neither the Joint Will nor the 2007 will prohibited the deceased Wife from making gifts or transferring property during her lifetime. Thereafter, in August 2008, the son-in-law, as trustee of the trust, commenced a proceeding for the validity of the 2007 will.

The daughter and son-in-law filed objections to the Husband’s appointment as executor of the Wife’s estate. They alleged that the Wife had already transferred her ownership interest of the condominium to the trust on June 2, 2006, and, therefore, the property was neither a part of the Wife’s properties nor subject to the terms of the Joint Will that the Husband submitted for validity. They also alleged that the Husband had an absolute conflict of interest that prevented him from being the estate administrator of his former Wife’s properties according to her 2007 will and, if the Surrogate's Court would allow him to act as his former Wife’s executor regardless, his letters should be limited and he should be required to post a bond.

Manhattan Probate Lawyers said that on September 18, 2008, the Husband filed objections to his son-in-law’s petition for validity, claiming that the terms of the 2007 will violated the Joint Will and, therefore, the 2007 Will should not be admitted for validation. The son-in-law moved for summary judgment of dismissing the petition for the validation of the 2007 will, dismissing the objections to the son-in-law’s appointment as executor, and to direct the son-in-law to execute and deliver the deed to the condominium to the deceased Wife’s properties.

The terms of Article of the Joint Will therefore create two categories of property that passed to the survivor, any property comprising the entire property of the one dying first, and all property of which either of the couple has the power of disposal. The Husband asserted that even accepting his daughter’s argument that the Wife transferred title to the condominium to the trust, thereby placing such property outside the Joint Will, such property was nevertheless encompassed by the second category created by Article SECOND of the Joint Will.

Specifically, the Husband asserted that because his former Wife, retained upon her death the power of appointment regarding the disposal of the condominium, and exercised such power in her 2007 will by directing that upon her death, the trust was to convey such property to their four children, in equal shares, the deceased Wife retained the power of disposal over the condominium. Accordingly, because the deceased Wife retained the power of disposal over the condominium, the 2007 will was, in effect, a nullity, because it did not exercise the deceased Wife’s power of appointment in favor of the Husband, as required by Article SECOND of the Joint Will and, accordingly, that branch of his daughter’s cross motion which was for summary judgment on their petition for the validation of the 2007 will should be denied.

Queens Probate Lawyers said that the decision of the Surrogate's Court found that the Husband was entitled to summary judgment on the petition in the turnover proceeding to the extent of a direction that as co-trustee, his son-in-law transfers back the condominium to the property. The Surrogate's Court held that the Husband was entitled to summary judgment on the petition for the validation of the Joint Will, dismissing the daughter’s objections to his appointment as executor, and dismissing the son-in-laws petition for the validity of the 2007 will.

In an order, the Surrogate's Court, in effect, granted the Husband petition for the validity of the Joint Will and, in effect, granted that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment on the petition in the turnover proceeding, directing his son-in-law as trustee of the trust, to execute and deliver the deed to the condominium to him, as executor of his former Wife’s property.

At the time they executed the Joint Will in 1993, the couple had been married for nearly 43 years. As they did not separate until 1997, it is reasonable to infer, that at the time they executed the Joint Will, they intended to remain married and to give to each other their respective properties as well as all properties over which they retained power of disposal. Given the circumstances in which the Joint Will was executed—namely, a long-standing marriage—the phrase whether owned jointly or severally was not, as the daughter contend, intended to qualify the power of disposal phrase, but instead intended to expand the scope of the requisite power of disposal to include properties the couple owned jointly or severally with each other.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates will make sure that you get what was given to you by a family member. The firm’s offices are located all throughout the New York Metropolitan area.

A rich man died leaving several properties in Central America and two States in the U.S. Almost two and one-half years later, a petition was filed in the court of a U.S. State by the Country of the deceased man for the order which is alleged to have been destroyed after the man’s death. That petition contains the further allegation that the man was, at the time of his death, a resident of the Country from Central America. The petition was amended in which the petitioner set forth transactions and proceedings with U.S. State Tax Commission wherein the petitioner was advised of the Commission's disagreement that the man had been a resident of the U.S. State. According to a New York Probate Lawyer, the petition was thereupon amended to read that the man, at the time of his death, was either a resident of the U.S. State or a resident of the Country from Central America.

The petition against the U.S. State was to dismiss their petition for the probate of the will on the grounds that the involved U.S. State court has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding and if it has jurisdiction, that it should decline, in its discretion, to exercise it. The Petitioner Country requests a hearing on the matter of the deceased person’s residence and the location of his property.

Tax Law requires that in every proceeding for original letters appointed by in the estate of a non-resident deceased person, the State Tax Commission must be cited as a necessary party. The section contains other provisions to protect the State's interest with respect to the collection of any tax that might be payable. The petition herein having been amended so as to leave open the question of the man’s residence, the State Tax Commission is taking no active part in the process of the proceeding. It is obvious, therefore, that the amendment of the petition represents not so much a change of mind on petitioner's part but rather an effort to avoid at this time unnecessary legal action.

It is true that the parties are not all in agreement respecting the man’s residence. Two of the contestants allege that he was a resident in Central America. The Attorney General of the U.S. State and a special guardian of infant parties allege U.S. State as his residence. However, no person claiming the U.S. State residence desires to bring into court the man’s residence concern as a preliminary issue in the process of the proceeding. The U.S. court would have jurisdiction whether the deceased man was a resident or being a non-resident, he died without leaving personal property within the county upon a motion for a preliminary trial of residence.

The Attorney General appears to be the only party to the proceeding contending that the deceased died a resident of the U.S., and he joins in opposition to the motion stating that the question is not relevant to the matters in controversy as to the validity of the paper considered as the deceased man’s last will. The court agrees in the conclusion and holds that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate the necessity for determination of the issue of residence.

In challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the process of administering the proceeding, the motion papers nonetheless admit that the gross assets owned by the deceased man at the time of his death had a value of over $3,500,000 and such assets are held in custody by the Country in Central America with over $500,000; U.S. State over $2,500,000; Province of Canada--over $500,000. According to a Manhattan Probate Lawyer, the Petitioner alleges, however, that the man left no real or tangible personal property in the U.S.; that his intangible property in the U.S. consists of several bank or brokerage accounts and stock certificates of a number of corporations, a great majority of which were organized outside of the U.S. State. The Petitioner requests a preliminary trial to determine the location of the assets taken into custody by the Public Administrator of the County who acts as temporary administrator of the deceased man’s assets.

The temporary administrator appointed by the court has submitted a report to the court in which he states that a brokerage firm was indebted to the deceased man, there was deposit in a bank, another firm owed the deceased man, and there were securities valued in millions, most of them in street names, all physically located in the U.S. State. All of the securities have been sold by the temporary administrator and the proceeds have been invested in bonds of the United States, the State and the City, all of which are held by the appointed person under the supervision of the U.S. State court.

A trial of the preliminary issue would be expensive and slow. Inasmuch as the court would have jurisdiction in any event, at least insofar as property in the U.S. State is concerned, the parties have long ago reached the point where they are anxious to try the important basic question, that is, the genuineness and validity of the will. The Petitioner, on the other hand, apparently prefers to delay the trial until the matter can be tried in Central America, where the proceeding is moving along at a leisurely pace.

Insofar, the motion to seek a hearing to determine the location of the securities left by the deceased man is denied. The property in the hands of the temporary administrator not only has a location within the County of the U.S. State, but is actually being administered under the supervision of the court and is actually and physically before the said court.

Records revealed that it is argued by the Petitioner that the authority of the U.S. court to entertain a proceeding for the process of administering the will of a non-resident is limited to those properties where no original administration proceeding is pending at the residence of the person who made the will. In the discussion of the question of jurisdiction of the U.S court, it is assume, without deciding the point, that the deceased man was a resident of a Country in Central America. In this property, a proceeding to determine the validity of the will is pending in Central America, which, for convenience, shall be referred to as the residence of the deceased. It cannot be said that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the probate proceeding and that, as matter of law, the proceeding must be dismissed.

Thus far it is considered only the power and authority of the court to proceed with the process of administering of the alleged will. Indeed, except for the Petitioner, the trial of the fundamental issues would have been completed by now. What has transpired since the last decision serves to confirm that decision. The Attorney General of the State opposes the present motion. The man died more than five years ago. Contrary to the usual practice of the court, the actual trial of the proceeding has not yet started. No one can assert when the trial in residency can proceed. No one can predict the result. No one can say whether a final decree in the residency will be on a ground that would prevent independent contest. No one can say how long final decision will be delayed. Since the prior decision of the court refusing to dismiss the proceeding, there has been substantial legal action and extensive services by counsel. To remit all parties to another forum after all the advances, and retreats, the exploration, and preliminary conflicts, would be a postponement of justice equivalent to a denial.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with their most competitive Queens Probate Lawyers can help you get what is rightfully yours. The team recognizes the circumstances you are in and will work hard to patch things for you.

The very popular Emmy is a trademark shared National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Before, these two entities were on under Television Academy of Arts & Sciences, this was in 1946. In the 1950’s they separated because of differences. New York Probate Lawyers say that around the 1977, the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS) and Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (ATAS) entered in a settlement agreement to resolve differences in each group’s right with the use of the Emmy trademark and the related litigation.

NATAS got among other things the exclusive right to conduct one annual award and show per year for national daytime programming (TV shows from 2:00 am to 6:00 pm), national sports programming, national news and documentary programming. ATAS got the exclusive right for the award for night time TV shows (TV shows from 6:00 pm to 2:00 am). The agreement also provides that they will need each other’s consent before creating any new national awards, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. A Manhattan Probate Lawyer found out that the agreement is if the other party feels that the consent was reasonably withheld, then they can resort to an intercession.

NATAS announced that they would be starting to award new Emmys to recognize “new media”. The announcement was made November 2005. The “new media” included Broadband video programming broadcasted over the internet. ATAS was not asked for their consent before NATAS announced the new awards. They as well announced that they will be awarding Emmys in Drama, Comedy, Children’s and Variety for Daytime Broadband. Part of the revelation was a "My Space/ My Emmy" contest, which will be for advanced media awards like video games and other technologies. NATAS had denoted that it will be awarding all entertainment programming on broadband media regardless of the time it was distributed. The awards were scheduled to be given away in June.

ATAS filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Awards (AAA). What they were asking is for relief because of NATAS’ announcement of new awards, which they claim is a breach of their agreement.

A Queens Probate Lawyer found out that the panel established that NATAS had inappropriately exploited the Emmy in no less than four separate occasions. The panel ruled that NATAS should not promote or participate in the "My Space/ My Emmy" contest. NATAS is as well instructed to not award new Emmys that will infringe on the genres reserved to ATAS. This being drama, comedy variety shows, music, "long form" including mini-series, reality shows, children's animation, made for television movies and non-fiction film making. Both ATAS and NATAS are ordered not to award any new Emmy for non-television devices. The panel also found that NATAS exploited Broadband by their announcement.

NATAS filed a petition for a temporary restraining order with its appeal to vacate the interim award, on December 20, 2007. They stated that the panel exceeded its powers by deciding on issues that were not submitted to them. The court of appeals decided that for the un-finalized interim awards, there are no grounds for dismissal. As for the panel going on more than their authority, it is the court’s decision that this is baseless. The court then ordered that injunction to vacate the Interim is denied. The court granted the confirmation of the arbitration.

A case like this is always high profile because it is the media that is involved, and everything is well publicized. Sometimes publicity causes people to lose focus on what must be done. Their goal and task are always with them and what they work for.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, we have a skilled legal team who will take care of your concerns when it comes to agreements and contracts. We do not require media scrutiny to do our best. If you have an agreement or a contract with someone that you feel have been breached, or you are involved in an estate litigation matter or will contest, you can go in any of our offices, contact us online or call 1-800 NY - NY- LAW for a consultation. We handle cases from New York and Long Island.

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.

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.

In the matter of Mary Cairo’s will, a question has been raised whether Joseph L. Cairo her grandson has the right to raise a dispute against the terms for the distribution of the will. The decedent named three different charities as the beneficiary of the remaining part of her estate. This is after her sister, Elizabeth Jennings, gets her cooperative house and all its furnishings, including personal property. In the will, according to a New York Probate Lawyer, she says that if her sister dies before her then her share will also be divided equally between the three charities. The sixth article of the will specifically said “I make no bequest to my grandson, Joseph L. Cairo, and I make no bequests to my daughters-in-law, Antoinette Cairo and Audrey Cario, for good and sufficient reason.”

That in the interpretation of a will, the first rule that the court follows is to determine the actual intention of the decedent. The second rule is to establish such an intent from will as a whole and not just part. The will undisputedly show that Mary Cairo wanted to leave the bulk of her estate to charity. Not only with the bequest but even with the provision that if her sister predeceased her, the bequest to her sister will go to the charities. To make it clear, she even named Joseph L. Cairo and others in her will and stated she is not giving them anything.

This was the basis for Joseph L. Cairo’s argument that he has the right to contest the bequest to charity. He says that since he was specifically mentioned then he has the right. Manhattan Probate Lawyers said that by law there are qualifications that must be met to determine a person’s right to contest a bequest to charity. The first is if the gift is more than one-half of the residuary estate. It can only be objected to by people who stand to benefit from a successful contest. This is where the intent of the decedent’s intention comes in. In her will, she showed that she did not want Joseph Cairo to have any part of her will. She wanted her estate to go to her sister and charity. The courts declaring that if they allow Joseph Cairo to contest, then it will be like saying it is possible for him to get something from the estate which is not what Mary Cairo wanted. IT is the court’s decision that Joseph Cairo does not have standing to contest the will as to the disposition to charity. He is also charged $10 personally.

This case was considered as one of the benchmark cases when dealing with terrorem clauses or no-contest clauses. Often, the decedents include them when they want their beneficiaries to have no problems getting their share. In interpreting the will, you will need Queens Probate Lawyers, who can get your side across clearly and make sure that it is considered.

In this type of case, you could be anyone. You can be the person being disinherited so you would need a quality lawyer, who can fight for your right if they determine that you have one to the estate. Quality legal counsel can make sure the proceedings is according to the will and the law and that your right to benefit is considered. Stephen Bilkis & Associates has the best of them. If you find yourself in this position, or if you are unsure where you stand in a will, walk into any of our offices in New York. We handle cases from New York and Long Island. You can also contact us online or by calling 1-800 NY - NY- LAW.

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

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

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

In September 20, 1972 there was a written agreement of settlement by the executor of the son’s estate, the executor of the mother’s estate Mr. McQuade and Mr. Tate as the administrator. This settled the objections to the son’s will and the mother’s will, from what a Manhattan Probate Lawyer got. Part of the settlement was that estate of the father will have a share in the settlement of the contest on the son’s will. They were going to give $25,000 to Nicholas’ estate.
Mr. Tate’s position was that Mr. McQuade did not take the necessary steps to make sure the father gets part of the son’s estate when it clearly showed that the will was to deprive the ward.

Mr. Tate further said that with Mr. McQuade being a beneficiary in the mother’s will and the guardian of Nicholas with the son’s will created a conflict of interest. This was not supported though because the mother had gotten advice from a separate counsel, and the will was drafted by the same lawyer who filed the contest on the son’s will. The father was the only beneficiary of the will. It also does not show that Mr. McQuade knew of what the mother had in mind for her last will and testament because it was only finalized three days before she died by a different lawyer.

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

The case was dismissed, and the court found that there should be no action to be taken. This may seem like Nicholas got the bad end of a stick. This happens a lot to people when they do not have counsel.

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

Arthur D. Norcross, executed a will that gives all his residuary estate to charity. His daughter, because the bequest exceeded half of the estate filed a will contest. The executors countered this contest saying that the daughter had signed an agreement that she will not contest any gift to charity through her father’s will.

The executors move for a summary judgment for this contest on the will to be invalid. The executor also stated that the daughter is not bound to gain anything with the success of the contest. Therefore, she does not have a stand to contest. Queens Probate Lawyers say they do not dispute that the bequest to the charity is more than half of the testator’s estate. What they point out is that in the will, it also states that “'I make no provision in this will, other than the provision in Article FIRST hereof, for my children, HELEN NORCROSS CEDER and ARTHUR D. NORCROSS, JR., not from any lack of affection, but because I have adequately provided for their welfare by inter vivos deeds of trust and otherwise.”

The law does not prevent any person from giving all his estate to charity, nor does it require for them to give any part of the estate to relatives. The law aims to prevent giving an undue portion to charity when relatives have a better claim.

A New Probate Lawyer also states that the law intends to alienate charities but to protect family members if they decide to raise this statute.

The words in the last will and testament will be the one to determine if the testator had really intended to disinherit a family member for the charity. The doctrine of Stare decisis, or basing decisions on previous rulings can take effect here. In this case, what the court did was to compare the words used in the testaments in the matter of Cairo. Both had stated that they do not want their relative to get more than what they have stated in their will. In this case though, the testator further states that it is not because of lack of affection, but because he has already provided them well while he was still alive. They do not want the charities to get nothing, in this matter though, it would seem that it allows the will to be defeated.

Mr. Norcross’ will is not showing disinheritance but s stating that he does have affection for his children, and he has given then sufficient benefits while he was still alive. In the matter of Cairo, what the will specifically state is that the testator wants to deprive the grandson of any property that will be left after all debts and fees have been paid from the estate. The intent to disinherit was conveyed. In this matter, the court determined that the testator did not intend to disinherit. They moved then that the motion for the summary dismissal be denied, according to Manhattan Probate Lawyers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "Estate of Julia Eckart " »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The decedent executed a will that left all her estate after taxes and fees to a Cemetery Association, a Fire Company, The American Cancer Society, a health association, and a society for the protection of homeless and dependent children. This constituted more than half of her estate.

If in case the will fails, a New York Probate Lawyer said that there will be twenty-nine first cousins who will be the beneficiaries. Three of these first cousins objected to the bequest to the charities. They cited law regarding the will contest for excessive bequests to charities. If their petition is granted any excess to half of the estate will be distributed to the cousins. The executors and the five charities appealed to dismiss the objection. The cousins objecting appeared before the court one with his separate counsel and the other two shared the same attorney.

To understand the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law regarding the excessive bequest to charity, one needs to determine first who can contest. The rule on contesting an excessive bequest to charity is that the person who is appealing against stands to gain pecuniary with a successful contest and that the bequest to charity is more than half of the estate. The law further supports it with the definition as to who these persons.

Before September 1930, it could have been any relative. It was reduced by a revision in the law to linear descendants, wife, husband or parent. There has already been previous cases where in even the brothers or sisters, niece or nephew of a testator were not considered as people who could contest the will under the excessive bequest to charity. From 1860 to 1930, it would have been a proper objection made by a first cousin. The new statute that took effect in September 1, 1967 for the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law was taken from a revision in the Decedent Estate Law. It was made so that both provision worked side by side. Again, this limited the people who can contest a will through the excessive bequest to charity to a surviving parent, husband or wife, child or descendant.

The problem of the objection is not based on the rule for excessive charity but with the definition as to who can contest a will. The descendant is defined as sharing a common ancestor, but instead of the testator, the cousins who are objecting want it to be changed to the grandparent of the testator. Manhattan Probate Lawyers said that the court has determined and emphasized that the descendant is one who has a lineal connection with the testator. It can also be those who were legally adopted and no one else.

The cousins also objected that they should still be allowed to object as an extension of the members because there is no surviving linear descendant. The courts say the extension of members still does not revert to the old law before 1930 but to people who are authorized to object like a representative. According to a Queens Probate Lawyer, the court found that the three cousins did not have the right to object to the donation to the charities.

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

The petitioner filed an appeal with the Surrogate Court to require payment of a legacy. Ms. Schlanger was to receive 4% of the remaining estate after taxes and fees of the decedent. She claims that if the part, which is $10,000, is not paid to her account most likely she will not be able to enjoy any of it. She is saying she is old and needs the legacy. A New York Probate Lawyer mentioned that the petitioner said the other beneficiaries have received their legacies.

The answer given by the executor of decedent's estate is that the petitioner in not entitled to be paid because she violated the terrorem clause of the last will and testament. The will stated in the sixth paragraph of the will that if any of the beneficiaries or people mentioned in her will contests or does an act to contest the will, they will forfeit their right the bequest. It further states that if they testify against the probate of the will, then they will lose their right to the legacy. Their part will be, in effect, put back to the remaining interest and shared by the other recipients.

In the response, it is alleged that the petitioner violated in two ways. She tried to have the decedent declared incompetent when she was still alive. This was the first instance. The second instance is in the probate proceedings, where even if she did not appear to contest herself, she conspired with another to have the will disallowed. This, said a New York Will Contest Lawyer can be considered as a violation to the terrorem clause.

In the conclusion of the competency hearing of the decedent, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case. The claim was that the competency hearing was to discredit any will that will be executed by decedent during her lifetime. The court’s ruling on this was it is not in violation of the ‘no contest’ clause. It is because it was done while the testatrix was still alive, and the provisions of the will regarding the contest only applies once the will is already presented in probate.

As for the second reason wherein she is charged of being in cohorts with another person to have the will disallowed. The son of the petitioner, filed an objection to the will as a beneficiary of an earlier will. The executor said there should be a hearing that will allow them to present proof of conspiracy between the petitioner and her son in contesting the probate of the case.

In a letter submitted by the petitioner, she says that she said that she did not violate the terrorem clause of the will. She said she did not file objections, did not actively prosecute a contest and did not testify as a witness. For this case though, the court says that they will consider her as have acted in concert and conspiracy with her son. While the son was the main party, the court considered her as the real challenger of the will. In Page on Wills, the rule states that 'A beneficiary who procures and obtains another heir to institute proceedings to contest a will, forfeits his interest under such a condition.' The court is not assuming that the petitioner really did the said act as it can only be determined by a hearing. Manhattan Probate Lawyers commented that when the court is following the rule that they must consider the facts of the allegation as being done even if it is improbable. These allegations are deemed true. They set a hearing for the issues raised, and the petition for payment was denied.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Will Contest Matter" »

A proponent of a will, petitioned the court to charge the person objecting to the will personally. The probate decree allows this application to be made after the decree has been final.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that when a person files an objection to a last will and testament in good faith and with reasonable grounds, he is entitled to have his protest investigated without him bearing the cost. There was a previous case whereby the Appellate Court reversed a decision of a surrogate court for an objectant to be charged personally because there was some evidence that supported his objection to the lack of testamentary capacity and to negative bad faith. This was in the Coddington will.

Good faith is mainly reliant on whether there is a considerable basis for a contest of a will. The court cited some examples, like with the Kurowski’s will, where the court charge the cost of the contest personally to the objectant because she had a sworn data that validates the will she is contesting. The Roger’s estate was mentioned by Manhattan Probate Lawyers because the court assigned the cost to the person who contested because there was no evidence to support his claim. This is not the sole basis for imposing the cost to an unsuccessful contestant.

Let us go back to why there is a contest for this case. In a will dated April, 22, 1958, a decedent disinherited her daughter. The daughter then filed objections to the probate questioning the due execution and saying that there was fraud and undue influence. It also challenged the jurisdiction of the court. She claimed that at the time of her mother’s death, her mother was a principal resident of Florida and not New York. The court was able to determine that the decedent was a resident of New York and not Florida in July 1962. This was still appealed by the daughter but was still affirmed in January 1963.

In May of 1963, her objection with regard to fraud and undue influence was tried by the court with a jury. Queens Probate Lawyers said that the contest about the due execution was withdrawn when it reached trial. After three days in the trial, the court determined that there was no fact to be submitted to a jury so it ruled in favor of the proponent of the will. The daughter did not file an appeal. The evidence at trial proved that the will was valid. The disinheritance is a result of friction that started in 1956, where the decedent purchased $120,000 of stock from her daughter’s husband. The husband then questioned the sale saying that the decedent misrepresented the value of the stocks. The daughter’s husband insisted on attempting to interrogate the decedent, even if there is a sworn statement from a doctor that such examination would put her mother’s life in danger because of a heart ailment. By the time the woman died there was already great hostility between her, and her daughter whom she disinherited.

The court then found that the will contest was filed in bad faith. It is also confirmed that the testatrix intended for the daughter to be disinherited, and it contains stipulations to that effect. With antagonism between them, the daughter couldn’t have logically expected her mother to make any provision for her. There was no evidence to support her claims and objections. The evidence provided pointed that the daughter just wanted to delay the probate with a contest. The court awarded the costs to the proponent less $158 for the transcript that will be charged to the daughter personally.

Continue reading "The probate decree allows this application to be made after the decree has been final." »

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

The trust company alleges misconduct on the petitioner's part while acting as the decedent’s attorney-in-fact and co-conservator while she was alive. An attorney-in-fact is a person who is legally authorized to transact business-related transactions in behalf of another. A conservator is a person appointed by court to oversee and mange the financial affairs of a person who is considered as under a legal disability. It is also required that part of the financial accounting is submitted for review. It is said the petitioner did not submit his records to his co-conservators, including the documents and assets of the decedent. He is also charged with preventing access to the decedent's apartment, drawing checks that are payable to himself or cash, and wrongful investment of funds owned by the decedent in Great Britain.

The court states that if there is a good cause it may reverse the instruction of a will to make a person an executor of the estate. In the preliminary letters issued, it is required that it is in its original form. This does not remove the court’s authority for a wise discretion in determining who will be part of the execution of the will. A Manhattan Estate Litigation Lawyer said that leaving out a person named in a later will do not require a full hearing. It can be determined with affidavits as a basis or through a summary hearing. The court says that they prefer to avoid a contest within a contest. The legislature also wants an uncomplicated probate hearing. This is to save on cost and time for the court, and the parties concerned.

A commentary by the Chairman of the Committee on Simplification of New York Probate was cited. It says that nothing is really served by contesting preliminary letters. Appointing a person to take care of the estate immediately is to protect the estate that is the reason why preliminary letters are sent to people mentioned in the will and any addition.

A Manhattan Estate Administration Lawyer said that in their decision, the court stated that due process asserts that the petitioner is as a named executor, and has the chance to answer questions on his ineligibility. There is also no petition that has been submitted to question the validity of the last addition where the petitioner was named. To avoid multiplicity, the court will wait for any contest to the will. If just in case the will or the addition to the will is contested and the probate denied, which is known to happen, then the condition where the petitioner is an executor is gone. If there is no contest on the will, counsel will notify the court and a hearing on eligibility will be set.

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

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

Senators recently detailed more of their plans to reform the tax system at the Heritage Foundation. Some of the things that they mentioned were liked, while others were not appreciated. The New York Estate Lawyer mentioned that the recent set of reforms will form a basis for many future reforms.
Conservatives aren’t however completely convinced that the new bill is a good idea. There have been many questions from the audience noted the New York Probate Lawyer. Many of the questions concentrated on the anti-estate tax movement. Many Conservatives are against the changes related to tax on probate cases.
Nobody likes paying taxes; it’s just something that everyone will have to put up with. For the reforms to succeed they will need to have bipartisan support. This is a bipartisan bill which should greatly improve the chances of creating something that people will appreciate.
The tax reforms are looking at trying to maximize the revenue earned by tax. These reforms are also ensuring that the tax rates for businesses are small enough to make it attractive to operate there. If tax rates are too high then many businesses will be tempted to relocate out of the state to save money. Keeping business taxes low are essential to new business.
Growth within America is Important for the economy as a whole. Everyone will benefit from more companies in the area. This includes people who will have more jobs, more investment, and a better standard of living.
This means that there will be a tradeoff. The tax rates need to be high enough to earn money, while low enough to prevent businesses from leaving the area.
There are also many discussions taking place over what to do with inheritance tax. This is the tax charged on possessions when they are transferred after a person’s death. There is a reason to keep these tax rates high – to earn more money. But also there is constant pressure to try and reduce the cost to bereaved families as much as possible. It may be possible to reduce your tax liability by discussing the situation with a New York Estate Planning Lawyer.

Continue reading "Tax Reform News for Inheritance" »

With the tax season upon Americans, it is time to figure out your gross income and taxable income and home you do not have to pay the IRS any taxes. Let your iPhone help you as you work through your w-2s. There are several iPhone apps that can make the process easier, a New York Estate Lawyer said.

Try the app created by the IRS they. The IRS2GO is where you can review your tax refund. You can also look up tax tips if you have any questions about filing or procedures. Filing taxes does not always have to be tricky, commented a New York Probate Lawyer. The app is free to use.

H&R Block also has an iPhone app that will help you through the entire tax process. Tax Central was available last year but has recently been updated to help you with all of your questions. The Tax Central app is the place to go if you have any tax questions. You can also check your tax liability, a New York Estate Planning Lawyer mentioned. The H&R Block app is free to download.

H&R Block is not the only company that has a tax app. The creator of TurboTax software has created the TaxCaster Mobile app for the iPhone. The TaxCaster Mobile app shows you how much you will get back or how much your will owe depending on your tax situation. It also helps you choose the best TurboTax software for your tax needs, conveyed a New York Estate Planning Lawyer. The app is free to download.

If you have tax issues with your estate, let a New York Probate Attorney help you get everything figured out. Let a New York Estate Planning Attorney walk you through the ordeal.

Continue reading "Let your iPhone help you have a smoother tax season, a New York Estate Planning Lawyer declares" »