Articles Posted in Brooklyn

In this case, Roxrun Estates, Inc. et al, are the respondents-appellants, and the Roxbury Run Village Association, Inc et al., is the other appellant-respondent and defendants.

Background

A New York Probate Lawyer said in 1972, Roxbury Run Corporation proposed to build a 500-unit townhouse development in Delaware County. A declaration was drawn up which laid out the rights and responsibilities of the owners who would purchase units in the development, as well as the property owners’ association. The Roxbury Run Village Association was created for the express purpose of building and looking after the various common areas, including recreational areas, which would be utilized by the members of the development. Two types of members were included in the association. Class A were owners of improved property. Class A members received a vote for every improved unit. Roxbury Run, on the other hand, was entitled to three votes as a Class B member for every property they owned. By December of 1979, all Class B memberships were to cease, after an amendment was made to the original agreement moving that date back from 1982.

Continue reading

The guardian of the decedent’s estate has filed for a petition and requested the court to allow the probate of the alleged will. The petition also contained that a fee should be established by the court.

The testator of the will and testament has passed away. He left his wife and 3 children his estate. The widow was named the guardian as stated in the decedent’s will. The widow at that time is afflicted with dementia. The two older sons of the testator were also named as co-guardians for their mother.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the two sons requested a probate of a specific will. A few months later, they filed another probate on another will and requested that the previous motion be denied by the court.

A guardian for an old man is accused of gross negligence, malpractice, inaction, unlawful and breach of authority relationship regarding his conduct and/or lack thereof in exercising a certain right of election on the old man’s behalf against the last will and testament of his deceased son.

The claim for compensatory and disciplinary damages results, allegedly, from the defendant’s failure as guardian of the father to have taken steps necessary to have enabled his ward to exercise his personal right of election against an excessive testamentary gift for educational purposes. While this probate proceeding concerned the will of the son who died, the facts herein involved concern the estates of three deceased because, as will appear more fully below, soon after the son died, the mother died and shortly thereafter, the father died.

Under the son’s will, the father, at the time of the son’s death, then over 90 years of age, was one of the son’s two beneficiaries, the other being the mother. The petition for validation of the son’s will was later amended to describe the father as being then a person under disability because he was incapable of managing his own affairs and a request made, in view thereof, for the appointment of a guardian to protect the father’s interests in his son’s estate. By order the then Surrogate appointed the defendant as guardian for the father in the validation proceeding of the son’s will. Parenthetically, the defendant was a long-time friend of the family. In the proceeding, the mother was separately represented by independent counsel.

A woman died and signed a will two days prior to her death. The will state that she left her entire estate to one man. But, she did have another will dated many years prior to her death. It states that she left her assets to her brother and sister, unfortunately they did died already, and it says if they died partial of the assets will be preceded to one of the Catholic Congregation and the remainder to her cousin and his wife.

The man filed a civil case to validate the earlier will, to which the other heirs from another will filed an objection. The eight day trial resulted on a denial to the motion, by which the jury found that the deceased person doesn’t have the legal ability to make a will and it was only done by influence. A New York Probate Lawyer said the man requests a higher court to review the lower court decision and again denied. The heirs of the late will filed a petition to legally validate it. They issued temporary letters and no objection has been filed. And the other man from earlier will seeks leave to file objections to the late will, a stay to pending appeal and an order requiring the temporary administrator to file a bond pending appeal.

Based on records, in order to file objections, the prospective objector must have an interest in the properties that would be adversely affected by the admission of the will to attest. The man argues that he has standing because he has an interest in the properties and would be adversely affected by validation of the late will. And, as an appellant, he has contingent interest in the properties. However, this is not sufficient to file objections. The adverse consequences must be the direct result from the admission of the will to validate. It is clear that the man is not adversely affected by the validation of the late will. A Bronx Probate Lawyer said the only ground on which he can objects to the validation of the will is that there is a valid later will, which is the earlier will. However, the argument has already been determined in the prior trial and been rejected. He also argues that the court should permit him to intervene under its discretion to permit any party with a fair or slightly possible financial interest to intervene.

Continue reading

A decedent was survived by his wife (a person under disability represented by a guardian ad litem), an adult son (petitioner) and four adult grandchildren and the issue of a predeceased child. Under the decedent’s will, his entire estate was left to the decedent’s lifetime trust, which in turn leaves the entire estate to petitioner, to the exclusion of the surviving spouse and grandchildren.

Subsequently, a stipulation of settlement was entered into by the parties which was then approved by the court for the best interest of all parties concerned. The approved settlement permitted the will’s admission to probate (estate litigation or will contest), effectively guarantees the surviving spouse her elective share, and distributes the net estate after payment of debts, administration expenses, and the elective share, into two parts, one part to be distributed to the petitioner and the other to be divided equally among the grandchildren.

The question now is the amount of appropriate fee for the guardian ad litem.

Continue reading

An appeal on the ruling on the last will and testament of a deceased woman was filed in the Surrogates’ Court of Eric County. In the first appeal, the respondents appeal from a ruling admitting the last will and testament of the deceased who is a resident of Vermont to original validation and granting letters of administration and letters of trusteeship to the petitioner. In the second appeal, the respondents appeal from an order that dismissed their challenge to matter of jurisdiction of the Surrogate’s Court to the validation of the deceased woman’s will. In the third appeal, the respondents appeal from an order that denied their motion for leave to renew the jurisdictional challenge that was dismissed by the order in the second appeal. The order in the third appeal superseded the order in the second appeal therefore the second appeal must be dismissed. In the third appeal the Surrogate erred in denying the respondents’ motion for leave to renew and upon renewal, should have declined to exercise jurisdiction over the property of a nonresident and granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition. The findings and order of the Vermont Probate Court accepting original jurisdiction over the property constitute new or additional facts that were unavailable at the time of the original challenge and that would change the prior determination.

Turning to the merits of the ruling in the first appeal and the order in the third appeal, it is firmly established in New York that jurisdiction over the property of a nonresident should not be transferred from the resident of the person who made the will unless it is required by some vital rule of law. Further, the Surrogate’s Court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident deceased person’s property when the deceased leaves the property in the state. A New York Probate Lawyer said that in determining whether to accept an application for original validation of a will of a nonresident which has not yet been admitted for validation in the deceased person’s residence, a court should examine the nature of New York’s contacts with the deceased and her property, including the location of the assets, the residence of the nominated executor and beneficiaries, the expense of proving the will in the residence of the deceased, the deceased person’s request, if any, for New York validation and the good faith of the proponents. The court should also consider what weight should be given to the fact that the residence of the deceased has already assumed jurisdiction over the property.

The petitioner contends that the Surrogate properly exercised jurisdiction over the property of the deceased based on the exercise in her will of certain limited powers of appointment over two trusts established by her predeceased husband for her benefit. Bronx Probate Lawyers said the property includes a trusts owned property situated in New York and ownership of three bank accounts allegedly located in New York. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the assets of the trusts were never the deceased woman’s property and thus are not for validation assets located in New York sufficient to grant jurisdiction in New York over the deceased woman’s property. It is well established that the property in a trust remains the property of the benefactor until it absolutely entrusted in some person or corporation and that a beneficiary with a power to appoint by will is a mere representative of the benefactor. Thus, when the deceased exercised the powers of appointment gave her by the terms of the trusts in favor of other trusts established in her will, she was not disposing of her own assets but, by authority bestowed upon her by her husband, she was disposing of property which never lost its identity as part of the trusts’ property.

Continue reading