New York City

Published on: May 4, 2012

Children of Famous Artist Seek Restitution

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is in regards to the estate of Mark Rothko. Kate Rothko and Christopher Rothko are petitioners, while charitable beneficiaries are also cross-petitioners. The respondents are Bernard J. Reis, Theodoros Stamos, Morton Levine, Marlborough Gallery, Inc., Marlborough A.G., and Francis K. Lloyd. The Mark Rothko Foundation, Inc. was listed as an intervener.

The Case

A New York Probate Lawyers said Mark Rothko, a worldwide renowned abstract expressionist artist passed away on February 25, 1970. The petitioners are the artist’s children. The children seek restitution for their father’s estate, both in terms of paintings that were sold by the parties involved, and in financial compensation for the paintings which were already sold to non-party purchases. They also seek to have their legal fees compensated. Essentially, the suit is about whether the children, should have control over their father’s estate, or whether the executors named should. The Attorney General represented the people of New York due to the charitable interest in the case. Reis and Stamos are charged with acting in a conflict of interest, while Levine is charged with negligence regarding the sale of the property. All are charged with not fulfilling their legal obligations correctly.

Published on: May 4, 2012

Court Determines if Loan is in Default

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellant of this case is Gray Wolf Corporation. Gray Wolf Corporation is being represented by Warren B. Rosenbaum from Woods, Oviatt and Gilman, LLP. The defendant and respondent et al of the case is Gleason Estates Associates, LP. Gleason Estates Associates LP is being represented by Gregory J. Mascitti from Leclair Ryan. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the fourth judicial department. The judges who are hearing the case are Martoche, JJ, Lindley, Smith, and Scudder, P.J.

About the Case

A New York Probate Lawyer said this case was started by the plaintiff as a foreclosure action and then moved to a summary judgment based on the complaint. The defendant of the case made a cross move for a summary judgment to dismiss the case altogether.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Defenant Appeals Jury Verdict

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Scott H. See Jr. is the appellant. Baltic Estates, Inc. are the respondents.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer said this case involves the recovery of damages for personal injuries. There was another action that was tied to this one, but the two were eventually consolidated. With the limitations involved in his brief, the plaintiff makes an appeal against an order issued by the Supreme Court of Dutchess County which was entered in July of 2008. This order denied a motion that the appellant made which moved for the dismissal of a verdict reached by a jury. The conclusion reached by the jury had been on the side of the defendant in regards to the liability in the case. The appellant contends that the majority of the evidence should have lead the jury to rule in his favor instead of falling on the side of the defendant, which he feels is grounds for a new trial. By the same token, he appeals against the judgment made by the court on February 24th, 2009. This ruling was also in favor of the defendant.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Court Rules on Breach of Contract

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the case is Island Estates Management, while the defendant is MBA-Manorhaven, LLC.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer said the plaintiff had an agreement to buy a property from the defendant, based on a contract signed in December of 1998. A deposit of $350000 was placed to secure the purchase, but the final purchase price was to be based on how many units got approved for the subdivision. Island Estates had an option to review the property which was to last 60 days. During that window they could terminate the agreement if they chose. That agreement was extended, in writing, several times, a fact that neither party argues.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Will Contest Action Filed regarding Lawyer’s Will

by Stephen Bilkis

On 10 May 1977, a decedent who is an attorney died. On 27 June 1977, letters of administration (estate administration) were issued to the Public Administrator, County of Nassau. He received the keys to the decedent’s residence from a Nassau County police detective on 11 May 1977 and made a thorough search of the residence. The public administrator found a sealed envelope, among other things, bearing the words “Copy of Deed to Lutheran Cemetery,” “Copy of Last Will and Testament” (carbon copy) bearing the decedent’s signature. On the back of the envelope, written across the flap was the decedent’s signature.

The objectants, three (3) of the cousins named in the instrument and five other individuals whose status was contested by the proponent in the instant case, conceded that the document was written in the decedent’s handwriting. No evidence was offered to prove that the document was a carbon copy although the proponent herself alleged that it was a carbon and not a ribbon copy. The back of the last page was blank except for the following handwritten words: “Copy of Last Will and Testament” and “Original in Safe Deposit Box in Jam. Savings Bank.”

The instrument provided for the disposition of real property and bequeathed $300.00 to each of the decedent’s eight cousins and the residuary estate to two of the cousins. It appointed the two cousins as executors of the estate.

Published on: April 4, 2012

What are Appropriate Legal Fees in an Estate Case?

by Stephen Bilkis

On 4 July 2009, the decedent died prompting the petitioner to employ the services of a lawyer. A retainer Agreement was entered into by the parties stipulating the amount of attorney’s fees to be paid. Thereafter, the petitioner questioned the amount billed by the lawyer as his attorney’s fees alleging a wrong calculation of the estate as the basis, among others.

How much should, actually, be the attorney’s fees? What should be included or excluded?

A New York Probate Lawyer said the court has ruled that the ultimate responsibility for approving legal fees that are charged to an estate and the discretion to determine what constitutes reasonable compensation for legal services rendered in the course of an estate lies with them. While there is no hard and fast rule to calculate reasonable compensation to an attorney in every case, the court is required to exercise his or her authority “with reason, proper discretion and not arbitrarily”.

Published on: March 30, 2012

Courts Discuss Bond Provisin in Estate Documents

by Stephen Bilkis

On 4 February 2007, a resident of Nassau County died leaving a will dated 20 September 2006. She was survived by her two (2) children, a grandchild and two (2) minor grandchildren. Such will has been offered for probate by the nominated executor (decedent’s husband).

The will created a trust to be funded with the “exemption amount.” The trust shall terminate upon the death of the decedent’s husband who has a limited testamentary power of appointment over the trust principal. If or to the extent that the decedent’s husband failed to exercise the limited power of appointment, the remaining trust principal is payable to the decedent’s husband 1993 Insurance Trust. The residuary estate is then payable to the decedent’s husband. The decedent’s husband and the children are named under the will as trustee and successor trustees, respectively. Also, “no bond or other security shall be required of any Executor for the faithful performance of such person’s fiduciary duties in any capacity.” Thereafter, the attorney-draftsman submitted an affidavit and averred that he inadvertently used the word “Executor” instead of “fiduciary.” Apparently, the decedent’s prior will dated 2 April 1993, which contained one trust, dispensed with a bond in the case of any “fiduciary.”

In the instant case (estate litigation or estate administration) there is no will contest. However, the court is asked to dispense with the filing of a bond by the nominated trustee due to a purported scrivener’s error in the will.

Published on: September 24, 2011

South Florida Woman’s Fight for Inheritance Ends Up in Bankruptcy Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The niece of a deceased ice cream chain owner has ended up in bankruptcy court, indicated a firm of New York Estate Planning Lawyers.

It is her assertion that she is the rightful heir and administrator of the ice cream fortune – not the foundation to which the money has gone. She already made several attempts in New York, before filing personal bankruptcy in Fort Lauderdale, saying she had $32 million in litigation claims as her assets.

There are some who say it was a good idea, legally, for her to file bankruptcy. It may have held back some orders from the New York judges who are still overseeing her conflict with the foundation. Unfortunately for the would-be heiress, it did not quite go that way.

Published on: September 3, 2011

Considering A Lifetime Gift? This is Your Year, says New York Probate Lawyer

by Stephen Bilkis

According to one NY Probate Lawyer, this is the year to give. Thanks to sweeping changes in the laws governing the estate tax by President Obama late in 2010, making a lifetime gift is now easier than ever.

Lifetime gifts have long been the preferred method for transferring wealth from one family member to another. Lifetime gifts are not subjected to the heavy tax burden which posthumous gifts typically carry. The catch, in the past, was that lifetime gifts were capped at a relatively low level before the Gift Tax kicked in, meaning that the amount that could be transferred to a spouse or other loved one was actually quite small. The new law raises that cap to an all-time high.

If you are an Asset Planner or New York Estate Planning Lawyer, this new loophole could mean big business in the next two years. The new law is set to expire in 2012, and no additional plans have been made in Congress, meaning that the amount of time taxpayers have to take advantage of the new law could be short. Planners in New York City and Long Island are aware of these changes.