Articles Posted in Probate & Estate Litigation

In this case the Surrogate’s Court considered whether the petitioners presented sufficient evidence of undue influence for the court to declare a will invalid.  When J. Malone passed away, a petition to probate her will was filed.  Several relatives, collectively the objectantS, filed objections contesting the validity of the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, lack of due execution, and undue influence.

Under New York law, once a petition for probate is filed with the Surrogate’s Court, any interested party has the right to file an objection to probate.  However, the objecting party must state the basis for his (or her) objection.  Common grounds include lack of testamentary capacity, lack of due execution, undue influence, duress, and fraud.  Merely stating the basis for the objection is not enough.  The objectant must also provide evidence, either direct or inferential, of the existence of the basis for the objection.

In Malone, the petitioners moved for summary judgment dismissing all objections.  The objectants only opposed summary dismissal to the objection related to undue influence.  Thus, the Surrogate’s Court examined whether there was any evidence, direct or circumstantial, to support the objectants’ claim that J. Malone had been subjected to undue influence when she made her will.

The issue before the Surrogate’s Court is whether the petitioner made enough of an effort to locate a lost will before petitioning the court to proceed with an intestate administration.

In the case of In re Estate of Karp, after the death of R. Karp, a “paper writing” of Karp’s 1995 will was found, but the original was not found.  It appears as if the will that was found was either a copy of the original or a draft of the will that was eventually executed. Regardless, the document found was not the duly executed last will and testament of R. Karp.  The petitioner, who was also one of the decedent’s distributees, asked that the court not admit that will to probate. Instead, the petitioner asked that the court appoint her as the administrator. In doing so, the court would have to find that R. Karp died intestate. Because she has an interest in the decedent’s intestate estate, under SCPA § 1002 the petitioner would be entitled to be appointed administrator.

Under the 1995 will, there were 21 beneficiaries.  However, not all of the 21 beneficiaries were also distributees.  There were only 5 distributees, included the petitioner.  If the will is not probated then most of the beneficiaries, including the objectants, would not be entitled to any part of the estate.

In this case the Surrogate’s Court considered whether the petitioners presented sufficient evidence of undue influence for the court to declare a will invalid.  When J. Malone passed away, a petition to probate her will was filed.  Several relatives, collectively the objectantS, filed objections contesting the validity of the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, lack of due execution, and undue influence.

Under New York law, once a petition for probate is filed with the Surrogate’s Court, any interested party has the right to file an objection to probate.  However, the objecting party must state the basis for his (or her) objection.  Common grounds include lack of testamentary capacity, lack of due execution, undue influence, duress, and fraud.  Merely stating the basis for the objection is not enough.  The objectant must also provide evidence, either direct or inferential, of the existence of the basis for the objection.

In Malone, the petitioners moved for summary judgment dismissing all objections.  The objectants only opposed summary dismissal to the objection related to undue influence.  Thus, the Surrogate’s Court examined whether there was any evidence, direct or circumstantial, to support the objectants’ claim that J. Malone had been subjected to undue influence when she made her will.

When a testator nominates someone to serve as the executor of his (or her) estate, the court does everything possible to fulfill the wishes of the testator by appointing that person.  Courts are loathe to substitute their judgement for that of the testator.  However, if the court determines that the executor nominated by the testator is not qualified or does not fulfill the duties of the job as required by law, it has the authority to decline to appoint the person as executor or to remove that person.

In Delaney, the decedent, H. Frankowski, died in 2013 leaving three children: J. Frankowski, A. Porter, and S. Roman.  J. Frankowski was appointed executor of H. Frankowski’s estate. When J. Frankowski died in 2014, the Surrogate’s Court appointed A. Porter as successor executor.  There were some irregularities related to the decisions that A. Porter made as executor.  As a result, on May 18, 2015, the Surrogate’s Court suspended A. Porter as successor executor and ordered that she no longer make any distributions from H. Frankowski’s estate.  However, the next month, on June 24, 2015, the Surrogate’s Court issued another order reinstating A. Porter. While she was given essentially the same authority as she had previously, the court restricted the amount of money that she could distribute from the estate to a maximum of $50,000.

A. Porter filed an accounting that included disbursements that she made after May 18, 2015 amounting to $198,668.31. In response, the petitioner, K. Delaney, who was also the executor of the estate of J. Frankowski, asked the court to immediately suspend A. Porter’s as successor executor for repeated violations of orders for the court. In response, A. Porter pointed out that she was not given proper notice of her suspension as she was not served with a certified copy of the order that suspended her as the law required.

In a contentious probate case, the specific issue that is before the Surrogate’s Court is whether it should revoke the letters of the preliminary executor based on misrepresentations and negligence.

Under New York law, regardless of who a testator nominates in his (or her) will to serve as executor of his estate, the Surrogate’s Court will only appoint that person if he is qualified.  In order to serve as an executor, the person must be at least 18 years old, must be a U.S. citizen or legal resident living in New York, must not have been adjudicated to be incapacitated, and must not have been convicted of a felony.  After being appointed, the Surrogate’s Court can revoke an executor’s authority upon a finding that he is no longer qualified because of negligent or improper management of the estate, or that he is no longer capable of managing the estate. Examples of actions that would be grounds for removing an executor include stealing of assets from the estate, mismanagement of estate assets, failure to pay creditors, failure to timely account to beneficiaries, or substance abuse.

In the Estate of Haber, the Surrogate’s Court appointed E. Haber as the preliminary executor after a prior preliminary administratrix was removed by the court.  E. Haber is also the half-brother of the objectants.  In an effort to convince the court that E. Haber was not fit to serve as executor, the objectants cited several actions of E. Haber as grounds for removal.  In his place, the objectants wanted the court to either appoint one of them as executor, or a third party.

In this case the Surrogate’s Court considered the issue as to whether to entertain an objection to probate of a will 30 years after it was originally admitted to probate.

This case relates to the probate proceeding of the will of decedent Schnall. Schnall executed the will in 1976. She died in 1980. Bostwick, Schnall’s daughter, consented to probate. The will was admitted to probate in a decree dated November 13, 1980. In 2009, nearly 30 years later, one of the decedent’s grandchildren filed a motion to vacate the probate decree. The basis of the motion was that several distributees of the decedent had not been named in the probate petition. In 2010 the Surrogate’s Court granted the motion, finding in instances where jurisdiction was never obtained over a necessary party, the decree admitting the will to probate is void as to that party.

Nechin-Pescow filed an amended probate petition in 2013 and filed a second amended probate petition ion 2014. Bostwick objected to probate, arguing undue influence and a lack of testamentary capacity. Two grandchildren of Schnall, Beesmer and Elchoness, filed motions for summary judgment dismissing Bostwick’s objections. The Surrogate’s Court denied the motion.