Articles Posted in Estate Administration

In this case the Surrogate’s Court had to consider issues related to a contested guardianship under Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 and invalidating a property conveyance by the person who is the subject of the guardianship. Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 provides that upon petition, the Surrogate’s Court can appoint a guardian to handle the personal and/or financial affairs of a person who has been found to be incapacitated and would suffer harm in the absence of a guardianship.

Here, it was discovered that R. Nurse transferred 50% ownership in real property to his stepson, Dacres. R. Nurse’s biological children, M. Nurse and H. Nurse, stepped in and petitioned the court to be appointed co-guardians of R. Nurse. They also requested that the court void the transaction that conveyed R. Nurse’s property to Dacres. At the hearing, evidence was produced that confirmed that R. Nurse had dementia. Further, there was clear evidence that R. Nurse was incompetent at the time that he signed the deed and that he was subject to undue influence. Thus, the court voided the deed and granted the petition of M. Nurse and N. Nurse to be appointed co-guardians. Dacres appealed.

In ruling in favor of the petitioners, the court noted that the general rule is that it is assumed that a person is competent. The burden is on the petitioner to prove with clear evidence that the party is not competent. When it comes to voiding a property conveyance, the burden is on the petitioner to show that the party was not competent at the time of the conveyance.

In this probate proceeding the court had to address an issue related to the construction of terms in the will related to the restriction on the disposition of real estate.

Decedent M. Bonanno died in 2002, leaving a last will and testament dated August 1, 1983. The Surrogate’s Court admitted the will to probate. The will provided that specific real estate that she owned in Queens go to her 4 children, and that it not be sold while her children remained single, and while any of them still lived in the property. It also stated that when the property was sold, the proceeds would be divided equally among her four children. Two of the decedent’s children petitioned the court for a construction of the provisions of the will related to the real property. They sought an order stating that each of 4 sibling owns a ¼ share of the property in fee simple without restriction. After filing the petition, the petitioners also filed a motion of summary judgment on the petition. The Surrogate’s Court denied the motion and the petitioners appealed.

In a summary judgment motion, the moving party has the burden of making a prima facie showing that based on the undisputed material facts, he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the moving party is able to do this, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to rebut the moving party’s motion and show that there are material facts in dispute.

This case involves an appeal to a Surrogate’s Court decision related to the accounting filed by an executor. One of the responsibilities of an executor is to keep accurate records of all of the money coming into an estate and all money distributed from the estate. The executor must submit a final accounting to the Surrogate’s Court which will review the records and ensure that the executor handled the estate assets properly. An interested party, such as a beneficiary, has the right to object to an accounting.

M. Schneider is the executor of the estate of his father, S. Schneider. According to the terms of S. Schneider’s will, his estate went to his two children, his son, M. Schneider and his daughter, J. Kotcher. M. Schneider was to receive corporate stock, valued at approximately $144,000. The remaining estate, valued at approximately $673,000, was to be equally divided between M. Schneider and J. Kotcher.

Kotcher objected to probate. However, Kotcher ultimately withdrew her objections after M. Schneider agreed to pay her $75,000. M. Schneider then filed an amended final account, and Kotcher objected to it because it credited the estate with paying the $75,000 settlement. By crediting the estate with paying her the $75,000, her pro rata share of the estate taxes increased. Kotcher asserted that the $75,000 was paid by M. Schneider personally, and not the estate. The Surrogate’s Court disagreed, concluding that the stipulation of settlement required the $75,000 to be paid by the estate and not Marvin Schneider personally. Kotcher appealed. The appellant division found in favor of Kotcher.

In this case the court is asked to enforce an agreement made by spouses in a joint will that required the surviving spouse to leave any property received under the will to the couple’s children.

This case involves a dispute over the estate of R. Wagner and T. Wagner. R. Wagner and T. Wagner were married. T. Wagner died and R. Wagner married A. Wagner. Then R. Wagner died, leaving A. Wagner as the surviving spouse. R. Wagner left a will that named Runstorf as the executor. This case is an action brought by the children of R. Wagner and T. Wagner for declaratory judgement related to certain property that was originally owned by R. Wagner and T. Wagner. The action named A. Wagner and Runstorf as defendants. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed.

In the complaint, the plaintiff asked the court to impress a constructive trust upon real property located in Staten Island, to void A. Wagner’s right of election, to impress a constructive trust upon the proceeds of A. Raymond’s pension plan, and to impress a constructive trust on the funds in savings and checking accounts that were owned by T. Wagner and A. Wagner jointly.

The executor of the estates of two decedents asks the court to determine whether the proceeds from an insurance settlement should go to the decedents’ residuary estates or if it should go to beneficiary who was supposed to receive the property that was destroyed.

Husband and wife decedents F. Zimmerli and J. Zimmerli, presumably died simultaneously in a fire in their home on December 13, 1959. They left reciprocal wills which were duly admitted to probate on January 15, 1960. The wills state the real estate that was destroyed in the fire was to go to the Grace Episcopal Church of Lyons, New York. Caverly was named as the executor of the estates of both of the decedents. Caverly filed a petition with the Surrogate’s Court for the Judicial Settlement of his first intermediate account in the two estates. In the petition, Caverly asked the court to determine if the $16,813.20 insurance settlement for the fire loss to the real estate of the decedents should go to the decedents’ residuary estates or to the Grace Episcopal Church.

The language of the wills clearly shows the intention of the testators to specifically devise the destroyed real estate to the Grace Episcopal Church which is plain and obvious. However, the question is whether the rules related to how to handle proceeds of insurance policy means that the proceeds should go to the decedents’ residuary estates.