Probate & Estate Litigation

Published on: May 17, 2023

Court upheld the validity of the submitted will, finding no undue influence and testamentary capacity. Estate of Dorfman, 173 A.D.2d 438 (1st Dep’t 1991)

by Stephen Bilkis

The validity of a will is a critical issue that can affect the distribution of an estate. In New York, there are strict legal requirements for creating a valid will. One is that the testator must have had testamentary capacity at the time they executed the will. Testamentary capacity refers to an individual’s ability to understand the nature and consequences of making a will, as well as the ability to comprehend the nature and extent of their property and the individuals who may have a claim on their estate.

In New York, testamentary capacity is defined in Section 3-1.1 of the New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL), which provides that any person who is at least eighteen years old and of sound mind may make a will. The EPTL further defines “sound mind” as an individual’s ability to understand the nature and consequences of their acts in making a will, as well as the ability to understand the nature and extent of their property and the individuals who may have a claim on their estate.

Estate of Dorfman involves a dispute over the validity of a will, which resulted in a court battle over the distribution of the deceased’s assets.

Published on: May 12, 2023

Court considered a case involving an allegation that a will was forged. Matter of Will of Rynecki, 33 A.D.3d 828 (2d Dep’t 2006)

by Stephen Bilkis

Contesting a will is a legal process that involves challenging the validity of a deceased person’s last will and testament. There are several grounds on which a will can be contested, including fraud, undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, and forgery. Forgery is a serious issue in the context of estate planning and can be used as a basis for contesting a will. When a will is forged, it is not considered a valid legal document, and the distribution of the decedent’s assets can be challenged in court.

Matter of Will of Rynecki is an example of the consequences of forging a will. The case is a clear indication of how courts handle such situations and how they arrive at their decisions.

Factual Background

Published on: May 10, 2023

Proponent of will proved that decedent had testamentary capacity. Matter of Pinter, 186 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Pinter deals with the issue of testamentary capacity in an estate plan. The case involves the appeal of the Surrogate’s Court’s decision, which had granted probate of the decedent’s will despite challenges to the decedent’s testamentary capacity.

In New York, a testator must have testamentary capacity at the time of executing a will for it to be considered valid. Testamentary capacity refers to the testator’s mental ability to understand the nature and extent of their property, the natural objects of their bounty, and the disposition of their assets. In other words, the testator must be of sound mind and memory to make a valid will.

New York law defines testamentary capacity as the ability to understand the consequences of one’s actions and to form a rational desire as to the disposition of one’s property. This requires the testator to have the ability to comprehend the value and nature of their property, the claims of those who may have a right to inherit, and the consequences of the dispositions made in the will. The testator must also have the ability to make a rational decision about how to dispose of their assets, based on that understanding.

Published on: May 10, 2023

Appellate Division upholds Surrogate’s Court finding of testamentary capacity. Matter of Estate of Neary, 53 A.D.3d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Estate of Neary addresses the issue of testamentary capacity and undue influence in estate planning. The case involves the appeal of the Surrogate’s Court’s decision, which had granted probate of the decedent’s will despite challenges to the decedent’s testamentary capacity and allegations of undue influence.

Factual Background

John Neary executed a will in 1999, leaving his entire estate to his wife, Catherine Neary. After Catherine passed away, John executed a new will in 2003, which left his estate to his sister, Ann Neary, and her children. John’s son, Michael, contested the validity of the 2003 will, claiming that John lacked testamentary capacity and that the will was the product of undue influence by Ann.

Published on: May 5, 2023

Court considered allegations of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. Matter of Frutiger, 87 A.D.3d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Frutiger addresses the issue of undue influence in an estate plan. The case involves the appeal of the Surrogate’s Court’s decision, which had dismissed a petition to revoke the decedent’s will on the grounds of undue influence. In this blog, we will examine the factual background, holding, and discussion of the case.

Factual Background

In 1999, decedent Jean Frutiger created a will that named her daughter, Janice Frutiger, as the sole beneficiary of her estate. Janice was also appointed as the executor of the will. However, in 2003, Jean executed a new will that made several significant changes. Under the new will, Jean named her son, Thomas Frutiger, as the executor of the estate and divided the estate equally between Thomas and Janice. The new will also included a clause stating that if Janice challenged the validity of the will, she would forfeit her share of the estate.

Published on: May 3, 2023

Appellate Division considered whether a settlor lacked the capacity to execute trust documents. Matter of De La Cruz v. De La Cruz, 147 A.D.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of De La Cruz v. De La Cruz concerns a dispute over the validity of a trust agreement. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that trust agreements are properly executed and that the parties to the agreement have the necessary capacity to enter into such agreements.

Factual Background

In Matter of De La Cruz v. De La Cruz, the case involves a dispute over the validity of a trust created by Maria De La Cruz, a wealthy New York City real estate investor. Ms. De La Cruz executed a trust agreement in 2012, which named her son, Pedro De La Cruz, as the trustee. The trust agreement provided that the trust assets would be distributed to Ms. De La Cruz’s two daughters upon her death. In 2013, Ms. De La Cruz executed a second trust agreement that revoked the first trust agreement and named Pedro De La Cruz and his wife, Jeanette De La Cruz, as the trustees. The second trust agreement also contained a provision that disinherited Ms. De La Cruz’s two daughters.

Published on: April 26, 2023

Appellate Division found that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of testamentary capacity. Matter of Estate of Richichi, 878 N.Y.S.2d 43 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

The distribution of a deceased individual’s assets can be a complex and emotional process. Disputes can arise over the interpretation of a will or trust, as well as allegations of undue influence or fraud. The case of Matter of Estate of Richichi is a prime example of such a dispute, where family members of the deceased individual contested the distribution of her assets on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity.

Lack of testamentary capacity refers to a person’s inability to make or alter a will due to mental incapacity. In New York, a person must possess testamentary capacity in order to create or modify a will. To have testamentary capacity in New York, a person must understand the nature and extent of their property, understand the persons who are the natural objects of their bounty, and have a reasonable understanding of the effects of their will. This requires that the person have the ability to comprehend and appreciate the consequences of their decisions and understand the interrelationships among those affected by the will.

A lack of testamentary capacity can be due to a variety of reasons, including but not limited to, mental illness, dementia, and intoxication. If it can be shown that the testator lacked testamentary capacity at the time the will was created, the will may be deemed invalid.

Published on: April 24, 2023

Executor of an estate was removed for mismanaging estate assets. In re Kamen, 835 N.Y.S.2d 48 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the legal world, the term “fiduciary” refers to a relationship where one party (the fiduciary) owes a duty of loyalty and care to another party (the beneficiary). In the context of estate planning and probate law, fiduciary relationships arise between the executor of an estate and the beneficiaries. The executor has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries and to manage the estate’s assets with care. In re Kamen involves a dispute over the conduct of an estate executor and the executor’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries.

Factual Background

The case of In re Kamen involves the estate of Dr. Albert Kamen, who passed away in 2004. Dr. Kamen was a well-respected psychiatrist who had amassed a significant estate over the course of his career. After Dr. Kamen’s death, his wife, Elaine Kamen, was appointed as the executor of his estate.

Published on: April 19, 2023

In a will contest, the Court of appeals found clear and convincing evidence of undue influence Matter of Sugg, 179 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In re Estate of Simmons involves a dispute over the validity of a will based on the testator’s alleged lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. This case is significant because it highlights the importance of ensuring that a testator has the necessary mental capacity and was not unduly influenced when creating their will.

Factual Background

The testator, Jessie Simmons, executed a will in 2004 that left her entire estate to her granddaughter, Sheila Williams. The will was executed by the testator when she was 89 years old and suffering from dementia. After the testator’s death in 2006, her son, Joseph Simmons, filed a petition to invalidate the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

Published on: April 12, 2023

Will rejected because it was not properly executed. Matter of Basch, 58 A.D.3d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, executing a valid will requires adherence to several statutory formalities. Firstly, the testator must be at least 18 years old and of sound mind to have the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of making a will. Secondly, the will must be signed by the testator or someone in their presence and direction if the testator is physically unable to sign. Thirdly, at least two witnesses, who are not beneficiaries under the will and are at least 18 years old, must sign the will in the testator’s presence and at their direction. Fourthly, the document must clearly express the testator’s intent to make a will and dispose of their property upon their death. Failing to follow any of these formalities could result in the will being deemed invalid, making it important to consult a lawyer to ensure proper execution.

Matter of Basch highlights the importance of following legal formalities in the execution of a will, and the consequences of failing to do so.

Factual Background