Articles Posted in Probate & Estate Litigation

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.

Contested probate proceedings often unravel complex familial dynamics and legal intricacies, and the case at hand is no exception. In this case that was heard by the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, the issue of fraud and undue influence in the execution of Maria Capuano’s will was at issue.

Undue influence in New York refers to a situation where an individual exerts improper and overwhelming pressure on a  testator, to the extent that it compromises the testator’s free will and independent decision-making regarding the distribution of their assets in a will. In probate cases, a claim of undue influence may arise when there are allegations that a person in a position of trust and confidence with the testator, such as a family member or caregiver, manipulated or coerced the testator into making specific provisions in their will that they may not have otherwise chosen.

To establish undue influence in New York, it must be demonstrated that the influence exerted amounted to a form of moral coercion, restraining the testator’s independent action and destroying their free agency. This could involve importunity that the testator could not resist, compelling them to make decisions against their true desires. The burden of proof typically rests on the party challenging the will, and they must provide clear and convincing evidence of the undue influence exercised during the testamentary process

The intricacies of wrongful death settlements often unravel in unforeseen ways, as evidenced by Matter of Buscemi, 32 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006), a case that developed following the death Lorraine C. Buscemi’s tragic demise.

A wrongful death compromise arises when an individual’s demise results from another party’s wrongful act. In such cases, the court not only determines the amount awarded to the plaintiff but also grapples with the allocation of funds between wrongful death and personal injury claims. Damages linked to wrongful death exclusively benefit the decedent’s distributees, addressing their pecuniary losses. Conversely, damages for personal injury and pain and suffering are typically allocated through the estate, subject to the decedent’s will or intestate succession laws. This allocation intricacy necessitates a careful examination of the unique circumstances surrounding the case to ensure just and equitable distribution.

Background Facts