Articles Posted in Probate & Estate Litigation

Undue influence in the context of making a will in New York refers to a situation where someone exerts pressure or influence on a testator (the person making the will) to make decisions that they would not otherwise make if left to their own free will. This pressure or influence can be so severe that it essentially overpowers the testator’s free will, and causes them to make a will that does not reflect their true intentions or desires.

In New York, the law recognizes that undue influence can occur in the making of a will, and will invalidate a will if it can be proven that the testator was unduly influenced. Matter of Rinaldi v. Chait addresses a dispute between the executor of an estate and the decedent’s family members. This case provides an important precedent for future estate disputes and highlights the importance of proper estate planning.

Factual Background

In the case of In re Estate of Lurie, the New York Appellate Division considered a dispute over the validity of a will and the distribution of a deceased individual’s assets. The case provides important insights into the requirements for a valid will and the legal rights of heirs and beneficiaries in estate disputes.

Factual Background

In 2004, William Lurie passed away, leaving behind a will that was executed in 1991. The will named Lurie’s wife, Judith, as the executor of the estate and the sole beneficiary of Lurie’s assets. However, Lurie’s two adult children, Richard and Susan, contested the validity of the will, claiming that it was executed under undue influence and that their father lacked the mental capacity to make a valid will.

In the Matter of Gittleman, the court considered the issue of testamentary capacity in the context of a will contest. Testamentary capacity refers to a person’s ability to understand the nature and consequences of creating a will. The law requires that a person creating a will must have the capacity to understand the extent of their property, the natural objects of their bounty, and the disposition they are making. In order to establish testamentary capacity, the testator must be able to understand the nature and consequences of their actions, and they must not be suffering from any mental illness or infirmity that would impair their judgment.

Background

The case involves the estate of Lillian Gittleman, who passed away in 2003. Lillian had executed a will in 2001, in which she left her entire estate to her son, Leonard. Her other son, Jeffrey, contested the will, claiming that Lillian lacked the mental capacity to create a valid will at the time she executed it.

Estate of Payne v. Williams involved a dispute between the Estate of Gladys M. Payne and her daughter, Louise Williams, who was accused of exerting undue influence on her mother in the creation of her will. In addition to the probate issues, the case also involved a wrongful death compromise.

A wrongful death claim is a legal action brought by the family members of a person who died due to the negligent or intentional actions of another person.

Background

Matter of Coiro revolves around the issue of undue influence in the context of a will contest. The case is significant in the field of estate and trust law, as it provides a clear framework for determining whether undue influence has played a role in the creation or alteration of a will.

Under New York law undue influence refers to a situation where a person’s free will is overpowered by the influence of another. In the context of a will contest, undue influence occurs when a person uses their power or authority to manipulate the testator (the person creating the will) to change their testamentary disposition to benefit the influencer. To establish undue influence, the contestant must prove three elements: (1) the existence and exertion of influence, (2) the effective operation of such influence so as to subvert the mind of the testator, and (3) the execution of a will that would not have been made but for the influence.

Background

Estate of Fasano involved the interpretation of a decedent’s will and whether his wife had effectively disclaimed her interest in his estate. In New York, a disclaimer of an interest in an estate must be in writing, signed by the disclaimant, and filed with the court within nine months of the decedent’s death. It is important to ensure that the disclaimer meets these requirements to be valid. The disclaimer should clearly state that the disclaimant is renouncing their right to an interest in the estate. It should also include the name of the decedent and the specific interest being disclaimed.

Background

The decedent in this case was Joseph Fasano, who passed away on September 23, 2019. He was survived by his wife, Patricia Fasano, and several siblings. The decedent’s will was executed on May 6, 2016, and named his wife as the sole beneficiary of his estate. However, in the event that his wife predeceased him, the will directed that his estate be divided equally among his siblings.

In re Wightman examines the validity of a will that was created and stored electronically, without the use of traditional paper documents. Under New York law, a will must be signed by the testator (the person making the will) in the presence of at least two witnesses who also sign the will. The law does not specifically address electronic wills, and the petition filed by the executor raised questions about the validity of an electronic will under New York law.

Background

The case began when the executor of the estate of New York resident Beverly Wightman filed a petition with the New York Surrogate’s Court, seeking to have an electronic will admitted to probate. The electronic will had been created using an online platform that allows users to create and store legal documents, and had been signed electronically by Ms. Wightman in the presence of two witnesses.