Estate Administration

Published on: March 10, 2015

Parties Seek Leave to File Amended Objections in Probate Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In this contested accounting proceeding several applications seeking pre-trial relief have been submitted. Specifically said applications are as follows:

A. Application by objectants, by orders to show cause, inter alia, to amend objections and to join additional parties; and B. Application to cancel notices of pendency pursuant to Article 65 of the CPLR.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the decedent died on January 30, 1956. His will was duly admitted to probate by decree of this court entered on March 5, 1956. Letters testamentary issued thereunder to decedent’s spouse, the nominated executrix. Decedent’s will bequeathed one-third of the residuary estate to his spouse and the remaining two-thirds, in equal shares, to his three children with the further direction that the share of his two daughters be held in a “trust fund” until they each attained the age of 23 years. Decedent’s daughters attained the age of 23 years in 1959 and 1961, respectively.

Published on: March 8, 2015

Petitioner Seeks Repayment of Trust Principal

by Stephen Bilkis

A Probate Lawyer said the decedent Mrs. AH died in 1940. Her will admitted to probate, after minor pre-residuary dispositions, created a trust for the income benefit of her daughter M with remainder to M’s children. The trust was funded in 1946 and administered by co-trustees M, the income beneficiary and Mr. R. Mr. R died in 1959. From 1959 to June 1, 1977, the date of her death, the trust was administered by M, the income beneficiary, as sole trustee.

At her death in 1977, the remaindermen of the trust were M’s seven children, one of whom was P. M’s executor has now accounted as a fiduciary of the deceased trustee.

The account reveals that on October 9, 1963, M, as sole trustee, made a loan from the trust to P in the sum of $64,000. P executed a demand promissory note to the trust. As security, P executed an assignment of all his right, title and interest in his remainder interest, then (as now) a one-seventh share of the principal. P made interest payments on the loan from 1963 to 1968. No part of the principal of the loan has been repaid.

Published on: March 7, 2015

Petitioner Brings Action for Settlement of Trustee’s Account

by Stephen Bilkis

In this action for a judicial settlement of a trustee’s account and for a construction of the will and codicils of the testator, the trustee moves for summary judgment.

Probate Lawyers said the testator died in September 1918, leaving a will and five codicils which were admitted to probate in January 1919. By his will and codicils, the testator gave his nephew, C, an outright legacy of $500,000 and created fifteen trusts. Eight of the trusts provided that upon the death of the life tenant the corpus of each trust was to be disposed of as part of the residuary estate which was left entirely to charities (hereafter charitable trusts). The remaining seven trusts provided in each instance on the death of the life tenant for the delivery of the remainder of such trust to non-charitable beneficiaries (hereafter non-charitable trusts).

By Article Twenty-Second of his first codicil, the testator provided that the charities to which the residue was lift should not receive any benefit from the estate until all other trusts and legacies were fully paid. The testator’s foresight in making this provision is demonstrated when it was determined shortly after his death that the estate could fulfill the legacies and trusts only to approximately ninety per cent thereof. By a judicial construction of this provision it was determined that as each charitable residuary trust terminated, no payment would be made to the charitable residuary legatees until the then continuing trusts and all previously terminated non-charitable trusts had been funded in full and the legacy to the testator’s nephew had been paid in full.

Published on: March 6, 2015

Brothers Enter into Property Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

A Probate Lawyer said in an action for partition of real property, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 5, 1983, as, after a nonjury trial, declared that defendant was the owner in fee simple of the subject premises located at 16th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties are brother and sister. Upon the death of their father on February 16, 1977, and the admission of his will to probate, plaintiff and defendant and their brother, L, each inherited an undivided one-third interest in three parcels of real property. These consisted of a two-family house on 66th Street in Brooklyn which was plaintiff’s residence; a three-family house on 16th Avenue in Brooklyn where defendant had resided for more than 20 years; and a parcel of land in Shirley, New York.

A New York Estate Lawyer said the father also left money in bank accounts in trust for defendant and for her son, V, and it appears that there was a falling-out between defendant and her brothers when defendant failed to share that money with them. Nevertheless, plaintiff and defendant continued to have conversations concerning the transfer to each other of their interests in the two Brooklyn properties.

Published on: March 5, 2015

Probate Court Interprets Testator’s Will

by Stephen Bilkis

Probate Lawyers said this is a proceeding to construe Article Sixth of testator’s will which was admitted to probate on March 9, 1961. By said article testator bequeathed his residuary estate in trust, to invest and reinvest ‘and to pay to my beloved wife so much of the income therefrom as she may require for her proper maintenance and support during her lifetime. It is my purpose and intent that my said beloved wife shall at all times have sufficient income paid to her regularly so that she may properly maintain herself in comfort. Testator then directed his trustees to resort to the principal of the trust should the income be less than $6,000 per year or in the event his said wife shall because of her personal health require hospitalization or medical care so that the $6,000 per annum is not sufficient to support her. Said Article Sixth then concludes as follows:

This provision for the benefit of my said wife is made and intended to be in lieu of any statutory or other rights in my estate conferred upon her by the laws of the State of New York. In the event that my said beloved wife shall be dissatisfied with the provision made for her hereunder and seek to contest this will, or refuse to accept the provision made hereunder under her statutory rights, in such event she shall be entitled to her statutory share of my estate and to no more, which statutory share of my estate is to be received by her in lieu of the provision made hereunder.

On May 12, 1966 testator’s wife served a notice upon the executors herein wherein she states among other things that she is dissatisfied with the provisions made for me therein (in Article Sixth) and refuse to accept same, and demand that I be paid in lieu thereof an amount equal to a statutory share, in an amount equal to one-third of the net estate together with such amount and property to which I am entitled under section 200 of the Surrogate’s Court Act.

Published on: March 4, 2015

Court Discusses Order for Temporary Suport

by Stephen Bilkis

Probate Lawyers said the issue before this court appears to be one of first impression. The question presented is does an order of temporary support cease if the matrimonial action abates? Stated slightly differently, may a pendente lite child support order be enforced after the underlying matrimonial action has abated and, if enforceable, who may enforce it?

In this application, a non-party, the non-parent legal guardian of one of the children of the parties, seeks to enforce a temporary order of child support granted to the mother of the child. The temporary child support order was issued as part of a matrimonial action. The mother is now deceased. A factual review of this matter is necessary prior to the court determining the questions presented.

New York Estate Lawyers said in 1987 plaintiff-wife, BF commenced this matrimonial action. By order entered February 6, 1989, defendant-husband, AEF, was ordered to pay plaintiff $200 per week as pendente lite child support for KF (the parties’ only unemancipated child) and $200 per week as pendente lite maintenance. Defendant was at that time a retired employee of the New York City Department of Corrections. In an order, dated November 29, 1989, the court permitted the enforcement of the pendente lite order of child support and maintenance by way of a $400 per week income deduction from defendant’s pension payment. The pension was from the New York City Pension System which was then in pay-out status. Pursuant to the income execution plaintiff started to receive payments from the New York City Pension System equivalent to $400 per week.

Published on: March 3, 2015

Court Listens to Motion to Disqualify Lawyers as Executors

by Stephen Bilkis

Probate Lawyers said the widow of the testator has made this motion to disqualify the attorneys for the executors and their counsel, to restrain them from participating in the affairs of the estate and from continuing to appear for the executors in matters affecting the estate, and to require said attorneys and their counsel to restore to the estate all sums of money they have received for legal services or otherwise.

Testator’s will was duly admitted to probate and letters testamentary issued to his three children as the nominated executors therein. By the provisions of his will testator bequeathed $5,000 to his widow and provided other benefits for her, not necessary of enumeration, and bequeathed and devised the residue of his estate, in equal shares to his three children whom he named as executors. The widow filed a notice of election to take her intestate share in the estate as provided by Section 18 Decedent Estate Law, and instituted a proceeding to determine the validity of such election. The matter was settled by agreement wherein the widow was to receive 28 1/2% of the net estate with the balance being distributable to testator’s children in equal shares.

New York Estate Lawyers said thereafter the widow instituted a proceeding to compel the executors to account and on their failure to file the account as directed made a motion to punish from for contempt. The account was filed and objections thereto were filed by the widow and examinations of the executors were allowed with reference to such account. In addition the widow sought to compel the executors to account in the estate of testator’s first wife under the terms of whose will testator was the income beneficiary of a trust of the residuary estate with the remainder of such trust bequeathed and devised to testator’s and his first wife’s three children, the executors of testator’s estate.

Published on: March 2, 2015

Petition Files a Petition to Compel

by Stephen Bilkis

New York Probate Lawyer said that RF died intestate in December, 1947 and letters of administration were issued to his widow, the respondent, in the same month. In September, 1948 respondent filed an income tax return for 1947 on behalf of the decedent. During the return’s audit, respondent executed three assessment waivers, the last of which extended to June, 1954 the time of the appellant, United States of America, for the making of an assessment. In May, 1954 a deficiency assessment for income taxes was made by appellant in the sum of $32,440.09 and, in August, 1954 the District Director of Internal Revenue filed with the respondent a notice of claim for payment of that sum. The respondent neither paid nor rejected appellant’s claim.

In 1962 appellant filed a petition to compel respondent to account. In defense, respondent alleged the six-year limitation period provided in the 1939 Internal Revenue Code. Surrogate Moss, as a matter of law and in the exercise of discretion, denied appellant’s petition.

A New York Estate Lawyer said that the Surrogate conceded that, under former section 211 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, the filing of a notice of claim and its rejection were deemed the commencement of a special proceeding, effectively tolling State statutes of limitation.

Published on: March 1, 2015

Objectants Submit Order to Show Cause and Cancel Notice of Pendency

by Stephen Bilkis

New York Probate Lawyers said in this contested accounting proceeding several applications seeking pre-trial relief have been submitted. Specifically said applications are as follows:

A. Application by objectants, by orders to show cause, inter alia, to amend objections and to join additional parties; and B. Application to cancel notices of pendency pursuant to Article 65 of the CPLR.

Decedent died on January 30, 1956. His will was duly admitted to probate by decree of this court entered on March 5, 1956. Letters testamentary issued thereunder to decedent’s spouse, the nominated executrix. Decedent’s will bequeathed one-third of the residuary estate to his spouse and the remaining two-thirds, in equal shares, to his three children with the further direction that the share of his two daughters be held in a “trust fund” until they each attained the age of 23 years. Decedent’s daughters attained the age of 23 years in 1959 and 1961, respectively.

Published on: February 28, 2015

Court Decides Issue Regarding Loan from Trust

by Stephen Bilkis

Probate Lawyers said that decedent Mrs. AH died in 1940. Her will admitted to probate, after minor pre-residuary dispositions, created a trust for the income benefit of her daughter M with remainder to M’s children. The trust was funded in 1946 and administered by co-trustees M, the income beneficiary and Mr. R. Mr. R died in 1959. From 1959 to June 1, 1977, the date of her death, the trust was administered by M, the income beneficiary, as sole trustee.

A New York Estate Lawyer said at her death in 1977, the remaindermen of the trust were M’s seven children, one of whom was P. M’s executor has now accounted as a fiduciary of the deceased trustee.

The account reveals that on October 9, 1963, M, as sole trustee, made a loan from the trust to P in the sum of $64,000. P executed a demand promissory note to the trust. As security, P executed an assignment of all his right, title and interest in his remainder interest, then (as now) a one-seventh share of the principal. P made interest payments on the loan from 1963 to 1968. No part of the principal of the loan has been repaid.