Probate & Estate Litigation

Published on: March 23, 2012

Court Decides Jurisidiction Between Switzerland and U.S.

by Stephen Bilkis

A Swiss national died on July 7, 1941. Prior to his death, he executed a will in New York purportedly to cover his personal properties in this State. The will was executed in 1934. When he died in 1941, the personal properties left by the testator were divided among his widow and three children. The petitioner in this case was not given any share because he was deemed by the testator as having been amply provided for. The estate in New York was divided in such a manner that ½ went to the widow and the other half went to the two children minus the said petitioner. This settlement was finalized in October 25, 1941

Apart from the 1934 will, the testator also executed a hand-written or holographic will which was executed on March 2, 1940. This later will disposed of the properties located in Switzerland, the domicile of the decedent and a decree was issued by the proper court of Switzerland while the New York proceedings was still on-going. A New York Probate Lawyer said he 1940 will did not make any mention of the earlier 1934 will nor was there any express or implied revocation of the same. The later will of 1940 disposed of all properties of the testator without making any reference to the personal properties located in New York because the will was silent on the issue of what securities were to be disposed and where such securities could be located. The only thrust of the 1940 will was to make a disposition of all the properties specifically found in Switzerland and there was no mention about the securities located in the state of New York nor was there any reference to the 1934 will. The said will also stated that all the testator’s securities must be given to the wife and all real properties located in Switzerland be sold and the proceeds must be divided between the widow and the three children which includes the petitioner. Since the estate taxes figured heavily in the picture, there was very little left for the heirs and the surviving spouse to divide. The petitioner in particular received very little amount when all the taxes were factored in the computation of the net estate.

The petitioner, one of the sons of the testator, went to the Court and asked for the issuance of ancillary letters testamentary and to ask the court to vacate an earlier decree excluding him from the partition of the personal properties in New York which was the subject of the 1934 will. He also argued that under Swiss laws, the effect of a succeeding will is to revoke all prior wills executed by the testator and that therefore the probate of the 1934 will was not in order because of the existence of a later will which was executed in 1940. Bronx Probate Lawyers said he claimed that if the 1940 will is to be given effect, he would not have ended up with practically nothing because though there were almost no securities left in Switzerland at the time of the death of his father, there were on the other hand enough securities that can be divided coming from the personal properties located in New York. To all of these arguments, the executor countered that the petitioner is already barred by means of estoppels from pursuing and contradicting the decree because sufficient time has already elapsed between the finality of the estate administration and consequent liquidation and the filing of the proceedings made by the petitioner.

Published on: March 23, 2012

Court Determines Jurisdiction of Conflicting Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

An American citizen who was domiciled in Austria made two wills in 1962 and in 1964. The 1964 will was brought before the Surrogate’s Court in New York for probate by the testator’s lawyer who was also his executor. In this will, the testator revoked all prior wills and he directed that the remainder of his estate after the payment of debts and funeral expenses be shared by his ex-wife and his close personal friend.

The two daughters of the testator filed their objections to the probate proceedings in New York. They claim that because the testator was a resident and domiciliary of Austria, the courts in Austria have jurisdiction over his estate. It was also claimed by them that the Austrian Court has already begun hearing the probate proceedings of the 1962 will of their deceased father which the daughters instituted.

The 1962 will provided that the testator’s estate consisting of 145 common shares in an American telephone and telegraph company be distributed to his ex-wife after deducting the payment of debts and funeral expenses. And, if his ex-wife was dead, then the shares of stock will be divided equally between his two daughters.

Published on: March 22, 2012

Court Determines Jurisdiction Question with French Will and Trust

by Stephen Bilkis

An American citizen who was a successful business man in New York got married to a French woman and thereafter bought a home in France where he lived together with his wife and daughter. Every now and then, he comes back to New York to look after some concerns about the business that he sold particularly because the said payment has not been fully paid. Whenever he was in New York, he would stay from time to time in a Flushing apartment which was especially provided to him by the corporation that he previously owned before selling it to his business partner.

It was also in New York that he executed a will in 1970 covering his estate and stated that the said will must be probated in the courts of New York when the proper time comes. Embodied in the will are provisions ceding to his wife all his personal properties and personal effects as well as a weekly allowance. The will also provided for an allowance to his brother which would come from the residuary trust. The daughter of the testator was also provided in the will and she was supposed to receive the income from a trust fund up to the time that she reaches the age of 35. He named as executor his long-time business partner for whom he sold his entire business interest in New York.

A New York Probate Lawyer said a few weeks before the death of the testator in 1972, he also executed before a French notary public, a deed of donation. Said deed of donation is in the form of inter vivos donation which will take effect upon the death of the donor. In the said Deed of Donation, he is leaving the entire estate administration and ownership to this wife subject to the condition that if there be children of the donor at the time of his death, then the wife as donee shall determine the right amount to be given to said children subject to the rules of the applicable law when that time comes.

Published on: March 21, 2012

Court Rules of Power of Surrogate

by Stephen Bilkis

A man appointed his wife and his daughter as executors of his estate. The bank was designated as the successor executor. In a supplement to his will, he removed his wife as executor and named his daughter as the sole executor and appointed the bank as the successor executor. Following the man’s death, a hearing was ultimately conducted in the Surrogate’s Court to determine whether the daughter’s initial letters of administration should be revoked and whether she was ineligible to be a permanent executor and trustee under her father’s will. The Surrogate decided that the daughter’s removal was justifiable and the court affirmed on the ground that the record supported a finding of inexcusable delay and the intentional refusal to obey the court’s direction. The court also affirmed the appointment of the bank as permanent executor and trustee. In the meantime, the wife who also died and her will were offered for probate in Westchester County.

The Surrogate court issued preliminary letters of administration to the bank being the nominated executor and trustee. Queens Probate Lawyers said the daughter intervened objections to the validation of the will. The law firm which had provided attorneys for the wife during her lifetime regarding the validation proceeding in her husband’s will was retained by the bank as its counsel in both properties.

By order to show cause, the bank applied for a ruling admitting the husband’s Will and its supplement, the letters of administration and trusteeship to validate. The daughter opposed the bank’s application and in a cross-motion, the daughter sought extensive relief which includes the disqualification of the bank from its appointment as executor of his father’s will and the prohibition of the subject law firm from acting as counsel to the bank and participating in the proceedings other than serving as witnesses. The bank objected to the daughter’s cross-motion, but the Surrogate, despite granting preliminary letters of administration to the bank, ruled that a hearing should be held in relation to the eligibility of the bank to be made as permanent executor and trustee. The Surrogate court also ruled that a hearing should be held to determine whether the law firm in question should be disqualified as the bank’s attorneys in the validation proceeding. However, a New York Probate Lawyer said it was an abuse of discretion for the Surrogate to require a hearing under the circumstances herein. The Surrogate directed, and the court affirmed, that the bank will be designated as permanent executor and trustee. The bank promptly complied with the directives of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act who dealt with the qualification of the executor. In addition, a proposed ruling and counter-ruling, and even the suggested the counter-ruling offered by the daughter which named the bank as the recipient of the letters of administration and trusteeship were submitted to the Surrogate’s Court. Indeed, the daughter failed to throw in any objection until the bank applied by means of the order to show cause for the issuance of the letters after the Surrogate had not acted on the ruling or counter-ruling. Yet, Manhattan Probate Lawyers said her papers do not allege any facts imposing that the bank be declared ineligible.

Published on: March 21, 2012

Court Hears Validation Proceeding for Deceased Priest’s Will

by Stephen Bilkis

A validation proceeding for the will of a deceased priest have two questions presented for determination. The matters to be determined are the right of the respondent to attack the jurisdiction of the Court and the finding of the residence of the deceased at the time of his death.

The Petition for Probate was filed together with an original will of the deceased. Two days prior to the filing, an order to search the safe deposit box of the deceased in a savings bank in New York was signed by the Monroe County Surrogate based upon a petition stating that the deceased had died a resident of the Rochester City New York. The safe deposit box was searched and a will identical to the one filed in Ontario County Court was found it was filed in the Surrogate’s Office of Monroe County Court by an officer of the said bank.

A New York Lawyer said that on the return day of the Citation, a Notice of Retainer and Appearance was filed by an attorney acting for the respondent who is a sister of the deceased. He advised the Court of the existence of what seemed to be a duplicate original will on file in the Monroe County Surrogate’s Office. The matter was adjourned until December 3, 1962, during which period of time the Court personally went to the Monroe County Surrogate’s Office and examined the application for the opening of the safe deposit box and the will which had been filed there as a result of such search. On December 3, 1962, a short hearing was held in the matter. The Court advised the respective attorneys that it had examined the file in Monroe County Surrogate’s Court. The attorney for the respondent requested an adjournment for two weeks with the understanding that he would file an answer with the Court and a copy with opposing counsel by December 10th and that the issues be raised by the answer and should be tried on December 17, 1962. On December 10th, respondent’s attorney filed an answer.

Published on: March 20, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue Regarding Will and Trust

by Stephen Bilkis

A man who was born and raised in Brooklyn died and survived by two grandchildren. For many years, the deceased and his wife lived in Florida where his granddaughter lived. At some point, he and his wife moved to Phoenix, Arizona where his grandson lived. They were living in Phoenix when the deceased man’s wife died. The deceased remained in Phoenix until he moved to New York in late September 2005.

While living in Phoenix, the deceased executed a will, which left his estate to the trustee. On the same day, he executed a trust agreement creating a revocable lifetime trust. Under the terms of the trust, the property passes to the grandson upon his grandfather’s death.

In 2005, the deceased called his sister and told her he wanted to return to Brooklyn to live with her. The sister and her daughter visited the deceased on September 27, 2005. At that time, the deceased was 95 years old and suffering from cardiac problems. The deceased asked his sister to take him back to Brooklyn to live with her.

Published on: March 20, 2012

Court Discussed Enforceability of Swiss Estate Documents

by Stephen Bilkis

An American citizen was domiciled in Switzerland. He died on January 2, 1964. He executed a will in New York on November 6, 1961. In this will, he bequeathed his entire residuary estate to his second wife and directed that his will be submitted for probate in New York and for the laws of New York to govern his estate.

The testator’s first wife appeared as the guardian of his two children and objected in the probate proceedings. She claims that the testator’s property must be disposed of under Swiss law as this is provided for by a treaty between the United States and Switzerland. She claims that under the treaty of 1850, her ex-husband’s personal property must be distributed under Swiss law even if they are found in New York. Under Swiss law, her children will be entitled to shares in the estate as forced heirs.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the Surrogate did not rule on the objection of the first wife but it issued a decree admitting the will into probate and it ordered the executor not to pay or satisfy any distributive share without orders of the Surrogate.

Published on: March 19, 2012

Court Determines Distribution of a Trust and Will Assets

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1935, a trust fund was created by a mother in favour of her son which provides among others that in the event of the death of her son, the trust shall be divided in 6 equal parts and one of which shall be held in trust for her grandson. The trust also stated that should the grandson die, the trustee should distribute the remainder of the funds according to the will of the said grandson or the laws of intestacy should there be no will executed by the latter in favour of his heirs. The trust agreement was entered into between the mother and a trust company in New York which was also the domicile of the mother at that time.

The son who was the original beneficiary, died in 1962 while the grandson died in California in 1965 survived by his widow and a daughter as well as 5 children coming from the first marriage. The grandson had a will and it was admitted to probate in California since it was his domiciliary. The will of the grandson specifically directed that all his remaining trust fund be further divided into two trusts for the benefit of his spouse and daughter with a proviso that the trust for the daughter be terminated 21 years after the last survivor of his wife, his daughter, and the children of his daughter who were living at the time of his death, has died.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the original trustee in New York commenced a proceeding for the final accounting and settlement of the trust intended for the grandson. The executor of the grandson’s estate which was in California instituted a separate proceeding involving the issue of heirship at the Superior Court of California. The executor claimed that the will executed by the grandson should be construed in a manner that the trust should be terminated upon the death of the grandson’s daughter. The New York court from which the final accounting and settlement of the trust was filed, decided to hold further proceedings pending the determination of the California Superior Court of the issues brought to its attention.

Published on: March 19, 2012

Court Determines Jurisdiction Issue regarding a Will

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner is the surviving spouse of the deceased who died a resident in the State of Florida. The deceased man’s Last Will and Testament was executed in the State of Florida and admitted for validation by the Circuit Court of the County of Lee, State of Florida. The will specifically devises the deceased man’s interest in the real property in the Town of East Greenbush Rensselaer County, State of New York, to his former wife and the remainder of his property to his two children. The deceased man’s son is the executor nominated in the will and he was appointed by the Florida Circuit Court. The executor, thereafter, petitioned the Court for supplementary probate of the deceased man’s will and it was subsequently admitted for validation.

All of the deceased man’s assets were located in the State of Florida except for the real property located in the Town of East Greenbush. The petitioner has exercised her elective share under the Florida law since the deceased man’s last will made no provisions for the petitioner spouse. The Florida law does not take into account real property not located in Florida so the petitioner filed a right of election against the deceased man’s New York State real property and has commenced the proceeding for the Court to determine the validity of her right of election.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the deceased man’s former wife has appeared in the will contest proceeding by her attorney and has joined with the executor of the deceased man’s property in denying that the petitioner can exercise a right of election against the East Greenbush property.

Published on: March 18, 2012

Court Decides Jurisiction Issue Regarding Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

A decedent, who is a resident of Texas and domiciled at Mexico, has possessions in Cayman Islands.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the decedent, while living in New York in 1988, opened an investment account in London. During his lifetime, he deposited over $1,300,000 through a New York bank and his account was handled by an investment manager of the London investment house. The deceased named his marital son as the beneficiary of said investment account.

In 1989, the decedent made an arrangement with a trust officer of another bank to establish a discretionary off-shore trust account in Cayman Islands using the funds from his investment account in London.