Articles Posted in Probate & Estate Litigation

When attempting to probate a will in New York that originated in another country, several issues may arise. The court must navigate differences in legal systems, questioning the validity of the foreign will under New York law. Considerations include the deceased person’s connection to New York, the residence of beneficiaries, and the executor’s location. The court may assess if the decedent directed probate in New York, weighing the convenience of parties involved. Potential conflicts arise, as the court must balance New York’s interest with the foreign jurisdiction’s primary role in determining the will’s validity. These complexities highlight the importance of careful legal evaluation and the potential need for the court to exercise discretion in deciding whether to accept jurisdiction over the foreign will.

Matter of Cohen 2004 NY Slip Op 24426 involves a dispute among the surviving children of Anna Cohen, who passed away in 1991. The conflict centers on the probate of Anna Cohen’s will in Israel, with Esther Green seeking to challenge the letters of administration granted to her sister, Deb Ireland, in the United States.

Background Facts

When someone dies intestate in New York, it means they passed away without a valid will. In this situation, the New York’s laws step in to determine how the deceased person’s estate will be distributed. If the decedent has both a surviving spouse and a child, New York’s intestate succession laws come into play.

The surviving spouse receives the first $50,000 of the estate plus half of the remaining balance. The child, or children, inherit the other half of the remaining balance. This legal framework is designed to ensure that the surviving spouse is provided for, but it also recognizes the rights of the decedent’s children to a share of the estate.

Matter of Eckert, 2022 NY Slip Op 50095(U) revolves around the intestate estate of James Eckert, who passed away in 2018, sparking a legal dispute between his surviving child, Michelle Eckert, and his spouse, Tara Connelly. The conflict arose when Michelle Eckert contested the marriage’s validity and sought administration of the estate. Despite an initial agreement reached during an ADR session, a subsequent breakdown in negotiations led to Michelle Eckert filing a motion to enforce the settlement.

Matter of Fakhra, 2023 NY Slip Op 23201 involves a dispute within a small estate proceeding following the intestate death of the decedent in May 2020. The two adult children, Sara Nabil Fakhra (Petitioner) and Aous Fakhra (Respondent), were appointed Co-Administrators of the estate. The conflict arises from Aous Fakhra’s renunciation of his interest in the estate and a subsequent disagreement regarding the effectiveness of the renunciation.

In New York, a will renunciation occurs when an individual, typically an heir or a beneficiary named in a will, formally declines or renounces their right to inherit from the deceased person’s estate. This legal process is governed by the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) § 2-1.11. When someone chooses to renunciate, they are essentially saying, “I don’t want to inherit what the deceased person left for me in their will.”

Renunciation is often done for various reasons, such as personal financial planning, avoiding tax implications, or addressing family dynamics. It’s a strategic decision that involves a formal written statement, signed and acknowledged by the person renouncing, stating their intention to reject the inheritance. This statement needs to be filed with the court within nine months after the effective date of the disposition, as specified by the EPTL.

Families often find themselves entangled in disputes over wills, particularly when claims of lacking testamentary capacity and undue influence arise. Such disagreements frequently arise due to differing interpretations of the deceased’s intentions or changes in familial dynamics. Courts, cognizant of the gravity of these allegations, meticulously assess each claim. To substantiate assertions of testamentary incapacity or undue influence, the court demands compelling evidence. The case of Burrows v. Burrows is an example of a situation where were such claims.

Background Facts

The case involved the contested estate of a deceased individual, referred to as the “decedent.” Marcia Burrows, as guardian of Ava Burrows and Audrey Burrows (the children), objected to the probate of the decedent’s will and sought to set aside the accompanying revocable trust, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Court granted the petitioners’ motion for summary judgment, admitting the will to probate. The court considered witness testimonies, including the estate attorney and accountant, establishing the decedent’s lucidity during the will’s execution. It found the respondent’s claims lacked specificity and were speculative, leading to the dismissal of objections related to testamentary capacity and undue influence. Marcia Burrows appealed.

In New York, being of “sound mind” to execute a will means that the testator must possess testamentary capacity. See EPTL § 3-1.1. This entails understanding the nature and consequences of making a will, knowing the extent of one’s property, and recognizing the natural beneficiaries. While a presumption of having a sound mind exists, a testator’s mental capacity can be challenged as it was in In Matter of the Estate of Scher, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51819 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2008). It’s important to note that common conditions associated with aging or mental health issues may not automatically invalidate a will, and the burden of proof rests on the party contesting testamentary capacity.

The probate proceeding involving the estate of Harold Scher, who passed away on February 11, 2006, has unfolded with a myriad of legal complexities and familial tensions. The surviving spouse, Leah Scher  objects to probate, and the decedent’s sons from a previous marriage, Mark Scher and David Scher and the proponents of he will. Objectant seeks to challenge the probate of Harold Scher’s will dated July 12, 2005, citing reasons such as lack of due execution, lack of testamentary capacity, fraud, and undue influence. In response, Proponents have filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, aiming to dismiss Objectant’s objections and secure the probate of the contested will.

Background Facts

In the intricate landscape of estate administration, the case of Douglas A. Bender’s intestate demise brings to light the complexities surrounding wrongful death claims and the allocation of settlement proceeds. This blog delves into the details of the case, exploring the legal intricacies, orders of the court, and the pivotal role of attorneys in navigating this challenging terrain.

Background Facts

In 2011, Douglas A. Bender passed away without leaving a will, leaving his spouse, Bonnie Bender, and four children as surviving family members. To manage the affairs of the estate, Limited Letters of Administration were granted to Bonnie on June 25, 2012. The only asset of the estate was a wrongful death claim initiated by Douglas and Bonnie due to asbestos exposure.