Probate & Estate Litigation

Published on: February 11, 2012

Court Rules on an Estate Litigation Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case filed by William Power Maloney against the estate of E. Townsend Irvin and against other people including the widow and other beneficiaries of the estate. It was determined in a report sent to a New York Probate Lawyer that Maloney served as counsel of lawyer for one of the beneficiaries, J. Gordon Douglas, who was also later named as executor of the estate. Much was discussed about this case because there were also other people involved in the estate like the Woodbury family.

Maloney was asking for the settlement of his legal fees because of the services he rendered to his client, J. Gordon Douglas. He was asking the court grants his petition and that he be paid for his services and that the payment should come from the Irvin estate. At that time, Maloney was asking to be paid the sum of $16,000 for his estate litigation services. It was questioned by the court and by the other beneficiaries why such an amount be paid to him from the Irvin estate when in fact, according to them Maloney did not perform or rendered any services for the deceased or his estate.

Because of the longstanding arguments of the widow and the Woodbury family along with J. Gordon Douglas, the proceedings regarding the estate has taken so long already. Douglas, according to Maloney approached him and said that unless there is a compromised agreement between the widow and the Woodbury family, the trial could probably take longer than necessary. Maloney said that he worked with the disputing parties to come up with a settlement. According to him, the sum of $25,000 was agreed upon by the disputing parties that finally ended their objections and disputes. But it unknown to both parties that Maloney was working for them and the estate. They were under that impression that Maloney represented Douglas who was at that time was not yet named as executor of the estate.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Probate Lawyer, this is a case about the estate of Bertha Weil Fitzgerald. Reports that reached his office said that the estate was left to a number of charitable institutions and couple of churches according to her will. These charities and churches are Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York, National Society for Prevention of Blindness, Inc., The Fresh Air Fund, First National City Bank as Committee of the Property of Paul S. Ames, Jr., Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Archbishopric of New York and for Terence Cardinal Cooke, The Salvation Army, Heart Fund, American Cancer Society Inc., and the New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center.

According to the Will that was executed in 1970, all of these charities and churches shall receive each an amount of $50,000. The Fitzgerald Estate was valued at $2 million. The remainder of the estate shall be given to the Archbishopric of New York. However, Bertha Weil Fitzgerald had a 41 year old son who was legally entitled to the estate of his deceased mother. It was also said on the Will that Bertha did not intend to leave any amount or any part of her estate to her son, who was also invalid and incompetent. The son according to reports had been institutionalized since childhood and therefore was under no condition to care for himself much less to her mother’s estate. It was also noted that the grandmother, Bertha’s mother already left half a million dollars to her grandson when she passed away some years back.

This case was filed by the trust company of Bertha’s son claiming that the son, under their representation did not receive any notice about the Will of Bertha. They claim that the son was not able to file an objection to his mother’s last will and testament and that it was right to do so. It was also noted that by law an incompetent spouse or in this case a son can file for an objection if he or she was left with a sum leas than or not equal to the sum that were left to other beneficiaries in this churches and charitable institutions. It is also what is known as a case of excessive or too much charity.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

The matter of Max Zurkow’s estate, his daughter had filed a motion for the court to wait on admission of a decision regarding the probate of the last will and testament. She also asked for a time extension to file objections and time to be able to examine the proponent and for an interpretation of the effect of the terrorem clause or no-contest clause that is included in the will.

On the return day of the hearing for the original matter, the daughter showed and the proponent was directed to change the petition because the adoptive daughter of Mr. Zurkow’s predeceased son was not mentioned. Another data that a New York Probate Lawyer obtained was the daughter was not served with the supplemental citation and is claiming she only received a day’s notice that a decree on the admission of the will to probate is going to be presented to the court. The daughter got an immediate order to show cause to wait in making a decision on the decree.

The daughter had checked witnesses who are verifying the proposed will and now wants to examine the proponent of the will. Her allegation was that the son of the testator, who is also an attorney at law, acted as the decedent’s attorney, and the will being executed in his office. Further, she is claiming that the provisions of the will were altered to assign other benefits to the proponent and his family at her expense. A Queens Estate Lawyer cited that the daughter was as well saying that her father was 80 years old at the execution of the will and was relying on other for his physical needs.

Published on: February 9, 2012

Court Rules on Use of Emmy Trademark

by Stephen Bilkis

The very popular Emmy is a trademark shared National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Before, these two entities were on under Television Academy of Arts & Sciences, this was in 1946. In the 1950’s they separated because of differences. New York Probate Lawyers say that around the 1977, the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS) and Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (ATAS) entered in a settlement agreement to resolve differences in each group’s right with the use of the Emmy trademark and the related litigation.

NATAS got among other things the exclusive right to conduct one annual award and show per year for national daytime programming (TV shows from 2:00 am to 6:00 pm), national sports programming, national news and documentary programming. ATAS got the exclusive right for the award for night time TV shows (TV shows from 6:00 pm to 2:00 am). The agreement also provides that they will need each other’s consent before creating any new national awards, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. A Manhattan Probate Lawyer found out that the agreement is if the other party feels that the consent was reasonably withheld, then they can resort to an intercession.

NATAS announced that they would be starting to award new Emmys to recognize “new media”. The announcement was made November 2005. The “new media” included Broadband video programming broadcasted over the internet. ATAS was not asked for their consent before NATAS announced the new awards. They as well announced that they will be awarding Emmys in Drama, Comedy, Children’s and Variety for Daytime Broadband. Part of the revelation was a “My Space/ My Emmy” contest, which will be for advanced media awards like video games and other technologies. NATAS had denoted that it will be awarding all entertainment programming on broadband media regardless of the time it was distributed. The awards were scheduled to be given away in June.

Published on: February 9, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case regarding the Estate of Julia Eckart and the claims of her children regarding each of their shares in the inheritance. According to reports given to a New York Probate Lawyer, the children of the deceased filed a case against the last will and testament of their mother because of the insufficiency of their inherited amount against that of which will go to other people, entities and charities.

Unbelievably, according to Brooklyn Probate Lawyers, Julia Eckart left each of her children the amount of $50 each. According to her will, she also left no other cash or property to the rest of her surviving relatives. That is why the surviving children, Charlotte Anna Eckart, Frank Darmody and Frank Darmody filed a case in court that says that their mother made an excessive contribution to charity and that they were left with nothing except for the $50 each that were provided to them by her last will and testament. The rest of Julia Eckart’s estate, including her real and personal property have been assigned to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, which is a non-profit corporation in Brooklyn, New York.

Reports that reached Bronx Probate Lawyers, the court thoroughly examined the case according to the petition filed by the children. There was also a similar case before when a grandson was expressly disinherited on the will that was left by his grandfather. This was the Cairo case which was a long and hardly fought battle in court which now became a source of other similar cases as well. But according to the court, there should be two elements present in a case before it can be ruled as excessive charity. First, there should really be the intension to give too much of her estate to charity. Second, there is the intention to disinherit immediate family members like the spouse or children by the one executing the last Will and testament.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Chardbourne and Parke, LLP represented the people who are involved in a Will left by Renate Hoffman, deceased. The Will was executed by Hoffman in 1988 and named the German National Church as primary beneficiary of his estate. According to reports, this 1988 Will was strongly objected and challenged by Robert Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. who were the primary executors of a prior Will of Hoffman which was executed in 1972. This became a long and extensive trial in which the two parties, Chardbourne and Park as well as Warshaw and Chase Manhattan entered in to an agreement in which the German Catholic Church received a considerable sum of $3 million dollars. In addition to this hefty settlement, the church will also receive a half-interest in a trust from the proceeds of the remainder of the estate.

According to further report given to New York Probate Lawyers, Chardbourne and Parke filed a case against Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank because of unpaid legal fees when the former performed its legal duties during the German Catholic Church settlement. Unfortunately their case did not progress in court. The court ruled in favour of the defendants, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan. In 2001 however, Chardbourne and Parke filed for an appeal of the previous decision by the court. Warshaw and Chase Manhattan argued that the 1988 Will was not the correct one to be administered and that Chardbourne has acted knowingly on their own. It was also noted by Warshaw and Manhattan that there was further wrong doing on the part of Chardbourne and Parke, LPP.

The trial continued on and arguments were presented regarding the 1988 Will’s validity which was also again brought up. This is due to the fact that Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank refused to grant Chardbourne and Parke the legal or attorney’s fees. Warshaw and Chase’s argument was that the 1988 Will was only illegal but that Chardbourne and Park was already aware of this but still continued on with its execution. But based on reports, when Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank entered into an agreement and settlement with Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the latter already impliedly recognized the validity of the Will and the contract agreement both parties entered into. Still according to the court, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan allowed a considerable amount of money be given to the primary beneficiary of the 1988 Will which was the German Catholic Church with a half interest on trust as part of the estate. This was considered by the court as more than enough evidence that both parties agreed on the validity of the Will in question. The court also noted that there is no legal cause to deny Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the legal fees for their services rendered.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

August 13, 1970, Julia Eckhart died leaving two children, Charlotte Eckart and Frank Darmody. In her will that was dated August 4, 1966, she left each of them the sum of $50 and the rest to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. The will was admitted to probate and daughter, Ms. Eckart and Mr. Darmody submitted intent to contest the will. This is because of the size of the estate distributed by the will. New York Probate Lawyers say that in the Estates, Power and Trusts Law, gifts to a charitable institution should not be more than half of the estate if contested by a descendant or parent. The law further states that the person can only contest if they are to receive a monetary benefit if the contest is successful as the beneficiary of the will.

Being the children of the deceased is not questionable. What needs to be decided on is if they have the right because they will receive a pecuniary benefit. The executor’s point of view was that the children did not have the right as the will expressed that Mrs. Eckhart, the deceased, did not want to give her children more than the $50, she provided for each of them. He relied on the case of Joseph Cairo as an example. The Cairo case, a Staten Island Probate Lawyer states, had the specific words that said that the deceased did not wish to give the grandson, Joseph Cairo, anything from the estate. The grandson was not going to benefit from a successful contest.

In this matter, the deceased placed her relatives in different levels as her children got $50 inheritance while the others did not. There was nothing that specifically or expressly stated she wished they do not receive anything more than the $50, she had appropriated in her will. The $50 in this case is insignificant. It does not show the intent of the testatrix if she wished to take away inheritance from her children. The law takes out intention with its provision. It keeps only what is stated in the will.

Published on: February 7, 2012

Public Assisstance Recipients File Claim Against the State

by Stephen Bilkis

The public assistance recipients who had been classified as employable with limitations had a filed an instant law suit against the City administration and the State. The people were classified as such because of the medical problems that they have. Their allegation was that the City administration often puts them in jobs that are not compatible with their disabilities. The plaintiffs who have been assigned to the Work Experience Program (WEP) state that aside from the incompatible jobs, the State has failed to supervise the program under the Social Services law.

New York Probate Lawyers found out that the court has found that the plaintiffs had raised a serious fairness issue and could be entitled to a Writ of Mandamus that requires a government agency to do something that they should by law. It can also be a writ of prohibition, which will prohibit a government agency, even a judge, from doing something that they should not. Or it can also be a Mandamus Review, where a decision of a public agency is reversed.

According to the social services law, in exchange for welfare benefits, the aid recipients need to perform WEP assignments, unless the recipients are exempted due to physical or mental disabilities. The city’s medical contractor determines if they are E-I or employable, E-II or employable with limitations, E-III or temporarily disabled, or E-IV which is permanently disabled, according to a Manhattan Probate Lawyer said. People classified as E-II should still work but will be assigned jobs compatible with their disability.

Published on: February 7, 2012

Can an Appeal that was Never Filed Serve as Notice of a Will Contest

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 28, 1975, a man died in West Monroe. He left a last will and testament dated November 27, 1972. The will was submitted to probate in November 1, 1977 and letters were issued to a family member as the executor of the estate and sole descendant. Prior to the settlement of the affairs, this family member died. This was November 5, 1981. In January 15, 1982, the nephew of the deceased executor petitioned the court for letters of administration. The court granted this petition in January 19, 1982.

In January 7, 1983, nephew asked the court to rule on whether the decedent exercised his personal right under the excessive gift to charity. By May 4, 1983, a hearing was held to present evidence.

The decedent, upon the death of his mother contacted a lawyer regarding some of the provisions in his mother’s will. The nephew also asked if these certain stipulations in his mother’s will can be broken. He expressed his discontent with his mother’s will especially in the paragraph that allocates any remaining estate to be given to Hospital North. Hospital North at the time of decedents death was non-existent. In a letter dated January 12, 1982 from an attorney for the Hospital North, it was said that the Hospital North was never created and will never be created.

Published on: February 6, 2012

Court Rules on a Workers Compensation Claim in a Wrongful Death Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

In a work-related accident, the decedent suffered permanent substantial disability in October 1973. An employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier was instructed to pay disability benefits to him. The defendant had pre-existing diabetes so the carrier applied and was give reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law.

When the decedent died on January 7, 1982, his widow filed to claim death benefits because she alleged that the injury sustained in October 1973 was an underlying factor in her husband’s death. A New York Probate Lawyer said that in compliance with the Workers’ Compensation Law the carrier converted the claim and applied for reimbursement from the Fund. There was a hearing with before an Administrative Law Judge and the application of the wife for death benefits was granted. The carrier did not ask for a review of the Workers’ Compensation Board about the connection of the injury to the death.

There was a later hearing for the carrier’s application for reimbursement from the Fund. The fund asked the Administrative Law Judge not to make a ruling until they could get a review from the Workers’ Compensation Board if the wife’s claim was compensable. The request was denied and the request of the carrier for settlement was granted. The fund appealed to the Board stating the wife would have not been awarded benefits because the death was not related to the injury sustained in October 1973. The Board’s decision was that the fund lacked standing to raise the issue. A Queens Probate Lawyer got information that the fund appealed.