Estate Administration

Published on: April 16, 2016

Court Decides Case Regarding Alleged Violation of Restrictive Covenant

by Stephen Bilkis

This action is brought to restrain the violation or the threatened violation by the defendant of a certain restrictive covenant claimed by plaintiffs to affect the lots or parcels of land within an area located in the Borough of Brooklyn now or heretofore known as “Manor’”. The area in question is bounded on the west by Flatbush Avenue, on the north by Lincoln Road, on the east by Rogers Avenue and on the south by Fenimore Street.

In the year 1893, the decedent died testate seized of said real property. His will was duly admitted to probate by the Surrogate of the County of Kings. By said will the testator’s real property was devised to his children and his executors were given a power of sale.

Published on: April 15, 2016

Court Decides Validity of Claim for Public Assistance against Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

This was a proceeding brought by BS, the executor of the estate of her father, LS, before the Surrogate’s Court of the City of New York, Nassau County, to determine the validity of a claim made by the Nassau County Department of Social Services against the estate for public assistance rendered to ZS, LS’s wife, from 10 June 1996 to 3 October 2002, while LS was still alive.

LS and ZS had two children, BS and MS, who is mentally retarded.

Published on: March 26, 2016

Court Discusses Investment Provision of a Will

by Stephen Bilkis

As an incident to trustee’s intermediate account of four trusts created under articles ‘Seventh,’ ‘Eighth’ and ‘Ninth’ of the will, the Court’s instruction is sought as to the investments authorized by article ‘Fourteenth’ of the will and as to significance to be given to the term ‘fiscal agent’ as used therein.

The Testator died a resident of Kings County, on February 14, 1924, leaving a will dated May 11, 1920, which was admitted to probate on April 11, 1924. The petitioner’s predecessor, a trust company, was appointed executor and trustee thereunder.

The portion of the will to be construed expressly states that the authority to invest shall be limited by the following: ‘Nor shall it invest in any shares or securities of which it may be promoter or underwriter, or of any corporation for which it shall be the fiscal agent.’

Published on: March 25, 2016

Court Discusses Case Where Second Wife Left Out of Will

by Stephen Bilkis

This was a proceeding brought before the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, for the accounting of AFS, as administrator c.t.a. of the estate of WPS. A stipulation was submitted to the court for its approval and incorporation into the provisions of an intermediate accounting decree. Jurisdiction has been obtained over the necessary parties to the proceeding, and no one appeared in opposition to the relief requested by the petitioner.

On 17 March 1980, the decedent died testate, and was survived by his spouse and an infant daughter, born of the marriage between himself and his former wife, who also survived him.

Published on: February 1, 2016

Court Hears Petition for Summary Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

In this probate proceeding, the proponent, one of the decedent’s daughters and the sole residuary legatee under the propounded instrument dated March 8, 1983, seeks leave to move for summary judgment more than 120 days after she filed a note of issue. In the event that the first branch of the application is granted, the proponent moves for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate interposed by one of her sisters and admitting the will to probate. The objectant’s papers in opposition only address the proponent’s motion for summary judgment.

The issue in this case is whether the motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate should be granted.

The court said that CPLR 3212 (a) application for leave to move for summary judgment may only be granted “on good cause shown.” Although the proponent’s motion was not filed with the court until more than eight months after the note of issue was filed, the objectant is primarily responsible for the proponent’s delay in moving for summary judgment because the objectant requested additional disclosure after the note of issue was filed and then failed to conduct the requested deposition in a timely fashion. Specifically, after the note of issue was filed, the objectant moved to strike it and sought further disclosure. That application was granted to the extent that the objectant was granted leave to conduct a deposition that she requested no later than approximately five months after the date the note of issue was filed. The parties thereafter extended the time to conduct the deposition for a period of approximately two more months. After the objectant’s counsel cancelled an agreed-upon deposition date, the proponent’s counsel notified him that he would not agree to any further extensions without a court order. The objectant never moved for another extension to conduct the deposition and the instant application was filed approximately one week after a pretrial conference with the court.

Published on: January 30, 2016

Petitioner Brings Motion Compelling Appearance of Proponent

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a motion for an order directing the proponent, who is decedent’s widow, to appear for an examination before trial to enable petitioner to frame objections to the propounded instrument bearing date March 10, 1961, and for other relief. The filing of a petition and service of a citation in a Surrogate’s Court proceeding is analogous to the service of a summons and complaint in an action brought in a court of record pursuant to the Civil Practice Act (Surrogate’s Court Act, § 48; Matter of Joslin’s Estate, 74 Misc. 332, 134 N.Y.S. 229).

The issue in this case is whether petitioner’s motion for an order directing the proponent, to appear for an examination before trial to enable petitioner to frame objections to the propounded instrument bearing date March 10, 1961 should be granted.

Published on: January 28, 2016

Court Decides Status of Unwitnessed Holographic Will

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner, a sister of the testator, presents an unwitnessed holographic instrument executed January 9, 1968 (‘January instrument’) and also a duly executed instrument (which has been proved as a will) dated February 20, 1968 (‘February will’). The January holographic instrument necessarily must be denied probate. It was executed in New York; the decedent was not a member of the armed forces; it is unwitnessed. (EPTL 3–2.2, 3–2.1.) As already noted the February will has been duly proved.

The January instrument disposes ‘of my entire personal estate’ to petitioner. The February will provides: ‘FIRST: I ratify and confirm all wills heretofore made by me at any time in every respect, except insofar as the same is inconsistent with the provisions of this codicil. SECOND: I direct that any monies realized from any and all Stocks and Bonds in my name be divided equally between: (listing three brothers and his sister).’

The petition presents an issue under the doctrine of ‘incorporation by reference’ as applied to wills. (see Law Revision Commission Report (1935) p. 431 et seq.; 1963 Report Bennett Comm.; Rept. No. 6.1B pp. 286–350.)

Published on: January 24, 2016

Petitioner Asks for Interpretation of Residuary Clause

by Stephen Bilkis

The residuary clause of the will of the decedent dated December 2, 1999, which was admitted to probate on August 16, 2001, reads as follows: “All the rest, residue and remainder of the property which I may own at the time of my death, real and personal, and whosesoever the same may be situate.” There is no more. The name of the intended beneficiary of the residuary is missing. As a practical matter, the residuary clause amounts to only 10% of the estate, since the will made pre-residuary bequests of 90% of the net estate.

The executrix of the will, has petitioned for construction of the will by reading the residuary clause to be the same as decedent’s prior will dated June 18, 1997. The residuary clause of the 1997 will provided: “All the rest, residue and remainder of the property which I may own at the time of my death, real and personal, and whosesoever the same may be situate I give, devise and bequeath to my nephew, per stirpes. In the event that my nephew, does not survive me, his share shall go to his wife.”

The decedent’s nephew died on November 25, 2000, without issue and the decedent died on November 30, 2000. The persons who would take the decedent’s estate in intestacy are a niece, and a great nephew. The decedent’s niece has filed a consent to the relief requested in the petition for construction. The decedent’s nephew defaulted in appearing on the return day of the proceeding. The attorney-draftsperson of the will, has filed an affidavit stating that when the 1997 will was redrafted in 1999, using computer software “some lines from the residuary clause were accidentally deleted.”

Published on: January 22, 2016

Court Hears Proceeding to Declare Living Trust Invalid

by Stephen Bilkis

There are three proceedings pending in the estate of the decedent: (1) a miscellaneous proceeding to declare the decedent Living Trust dated March 19, 2001 invalid; (2) a proceeding to probate an instrument dated March 19, 2001 as the decedent’s last will and testament; and (3) a proceeding by the trustee of the decedent Living Trust dated March 19, 2001, to judicially settle his account for the period from March 19, 2001 to May 9, 2007. On July 1, 2010, the court appointed a guardian ad litem for one of the decedent’s daughters, in all three proceedings.

The decedent died on May 9, 2007, survived by four distributees: two daughters; a son; and a granddaughter, the only child of the decedent’s predeceased son. The propounded will pours over to the living trust. The living trust provides only for the son, specifically omits the two daughters, and does not mention the granddaughter.

The guardian ad litem has filed a preliminary report in which he details his findings to date and, based upon them, recommends that he continue to represent his ward’s interests in all three proceedings. The guardian ad litem reports that one of the daughters has alleged that the decedent’s son exerted undue influence and fraud upon the decedent at a time when he was physically ill and depressed. The guardian ad litem states that, based on his investigation, he deems it appropriate to participate in the SCPA 1404 examinations in the probate proceeding and to continue to represent his ward’s interests in all three proceedings. The court agrees with his conclusions.

Published on: January 20, 2016

Petitoner Moves for Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Section 476 of the Civil Practice Act on the ground that plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs are sons of the decedent, there is no indication that they are the only children, and that decedent prior to her death employed the defendant, an attorney, to prepare a will for her execution. It is claimed that decedent directed the defendant to provide for a residuary clause naming plaintiffs as legatees thereof. The decedent could neither read nor write English and she executed the will relying, it is claimed, on defendant’s representation that the residuary clause had been prepared as directed whereas, in fact, the residuary clause was omitted from the will. Although decedent has been dead since January 30, 1961, there is no allegation that the purported will has been admitted to or offered for probate. No copy of the purported will is attached to the complaint nor are any of its provisions pleaded so that the court may know what provisions, if any, were made for the plaintiffs in the purported will. No allegation is made as to the identity of the decedent’s heirs-at-law who would succeed to the residuary estate in the absence of a provision for the disposition thereof in the will.

The issue in this case is whether defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Section 476 of the Civil Practice Act on the ground that plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action should be granted.

The plaintiffs urge the sufficiency of their complaint on the basis of two California cases. They claim that Goldberg v. Bosworth, 29 Misc.2d 1057, 215 N.Y.S.2d 849 (Special Term, Supreme Court, Kings County, 1961) follows the California decisions. In the Biakanja case, a will was denied probate because the defendant who drew it, a notary public, not an attorney, notarized the will instead of having it subscribed by attesting witnesses. The plaintiff was the sole legatee named in the will and by reason of the denial of probate resulting solely from defendant’s action, he received one-eighth of the estate instead of all of it. The defendant was held liable. In the Lucas case, the defendant attorney in attempting to create a testamentary trust violated the rule against perpetuities and the trust was held invalid. The beneficiaries thereof brought suit. The court sustained the complaint on the theory that the beneficiaries, although not in privity with the defendant attorney, were the primary objects of testator’s bounty and thus the express beneficiaries of the agreement between the testator and defendant attorney for the execution of the will.