New York Probate and Estate Administration Blog

Barbara Fairbairn, primary beneficiary and second wife of Howard Fairbairn was named primary executor of all his estates in June 1997. But according to New York Will Contest lawyer, Howard’s son, Richard Fairbairn by previous marriage filed an objection on the last will and testament of his father claiming Barbara exercised excessive and unlawful influence on his father and that the Will was executed with fraud. He filed an objection to his father’s will because he believed that Barbara was not the rightful person to execute or manage his father’s properties and other cash and assets. Unfortunately no such evidence was found by the court and Barbara was still and remained to be the sole executor of Howard Fairbairn’s will.

However, Barbara went on and continued filing a case against Howard’s daughter, Carolyn Desilva. Barbara claimed that Carolyn sent two letters Richard Fairbairn’s attorney and that both letters contained false accusations about her personality as well as her family’s reputation. The said letters were also sent to court as part of the evidence against Carolyn. According to reports, Barbara claimed that Carolyn was objecting to Barbara’s inheritance and the letters were her way to contest her father’s will. It was noted that Barbara had already filed a previous case against Carolyn to remove her from participating in her father’s estate. The court ruled in favour of Carolyn saying that there was no sufficient evidence or any cause to bar Carolyn from such participation. That is why Barbara again filed another case, still pursuing to remove Carolyn from her father’s will and testament. Barbara further claimed that Carolyn and Richard conspired against her to remove her from being the executor of their father’s estate. However, Barbara’s only evidence was the letters Carolyn wrote and sent to Richard’s attorney.

Carolyn on the other hand said that she only wrote those letters because she was asked by Richard Fairbairn’s attorney for some background information on Barbara and that those letters were never meant to hurt anybody or discredit anybody from anything. The court also said that it was also true that Carolyn was not properly informed that her personal letters were going to be admitted as evidence against her in the court of law. A New York Estate Administration lawyer was also informed that Carolyn even signed a waiver and consent that her father’s will was valid and that Barbara’s title as primary executor or beneficiary of his estate of properties were all executed legally and lawfully. These documents signed by Carolyn with regards to her father’s estate and also with regards to her father’s chosen executor or beneficiary only made Carolyn’s defence stronger, strong enough to dismiss Barbara’s appeal to remove her from her father father’s last will. Cases like this are handled in a similar way in Queens and Westchester County.

Continue reading "Barbara Fairbairn, primary beneficiary" »

In February 14, 1980, the will of Sally Lippner, deceased, was contested by her daughter Suzanne H. Epstein. Ms. Lippner died in January 11, 1980, and the will questioned is dated December 1, 1979. In Ms. Lippner’s last will and testament, she bequeathed all her property to five charities. There is a gift of Israeli bonds to the State of Israel. The will also state that her daughter Ms. Epstein receives no part of her estate as she had adequately provided for her in her lifetime.
The will further specify that in case that the will fail and becomes useless all the property will go to her trustees. In conformance to the trust agreement that she has set up while she was alive. The inter vivos trust was also set on the same date of the will. The paperwork says that the trust will be funded if in any case that the gift, devise or legacy made under the last will and testament made by Ms. Lippner will be ineffective. The trustees on the document are the same people named as executors of her will. Meaning, the trustees will give the income from the fund to the same charities she has named in her will, says a New York Estate Administration Lawyer. After five years, the charities then will receive the principal divided equally between them.
Ms. Lippner’s will included a “no contest” clause. A New York Probate Lawyer also said, from the records, it specifically stated that any person who will contest the will, it does not matter what reason will lose the right to any part of the estate which, would have been theirs. Aside from these papers documenting litigation between the Ms. Lippner and her daughter, Ms. Epstein, was attached. It had the history of the litigation to show that Ms. Epstein, although the only descendant was really intended to be excluded from the estate distribution.
Ms. Epstein filed four final objections to probate. The first one was the failure of due execution, second was forgery, third was the lack of testamentary capacity and the last one was fraud and undue influence. Failure of due execution, according to a New York Estate Lawyer, is the will having all the requirements of the law like having two witness signatures. The excessive nature of the will was not included because the courts decided that if the will fail by any other reason, then, the disposition to the charitable institutions will go with it.
The executor asserted that Ms. Epstein is not in the position to contest the will. This he states that is because either way she will not get anything. If the will take effect, she gets nothing. If the will fail, she still gets nothing.
What a New York Probate Lawyer got from the court’s review was that the ‘no contest’ clause does not affect the daughter’s right to contest. Her claim is to discredit the whole will. If the will become ineffective because of her reasons then the ‘no contest’ clause will also be worthless. The part of the will that says that her daughter is to receive nothing from her will is for the estate itself, does not affect her right for the probate. If Ms. Epstein was only arguing the part of the will for excessive charitable gift then she would most probably be denied the case, but what she is disagreeing with was the will as a whole. The rule, as it is in New York City and Queens, that if the person who is contesting will receive a monetary benefit invalidates the contest only applies if the will is attacked in part. The inter vivos trust need not be discussed as it is a separate agreement. For these reasons, the appeal for summary judgment to dismiss the objections to the probate was denied.

Continue reading "There is a gift of Israeli bonds to the State of Israel" »