New York City

Published on: June 26, 2013

Court Decides Suit Regarding Family Trust

by Stephen Bilkis

The document sued upon is a Family Trust.

On 19 May 1999, a Family Trust, a revocable inter vivos trust, was created. It is a 29-page document with nine articles. A, the settlor, is the mother of plaintiff and defendant. A, and her husband, B, are the co-trustees.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that according to the Family Trust, its purpose is to hold property, which was attached to and made part of the agreement, together with such monies, securities and other assets as the trustee may thereafter at any time hold or acquire (said monies, securities and other assets, referred to collectively as the “Trust Estate”) for the purposes of providing income to the settlor during her lifetime, paying her funeral expenses, estate taxes, probate fees, legal and accounting fees related to her estate, satisfying any cash bequests, all inheritance taxes, funding a marital share deduction, providing income for the benefit of her husband or their children during her husband’s lifetime and upon his death, paying the balance of the Trust Estate to their children, per stirpes. Further, the Family Trust agreement provided that if A died, the balance of the Trust Estate would be distributed to her husband if he survived her, and that upon his death, or the settlor’s death if her spouse predeceased her, the trustee would pay the balance of the Trust Estate to the settlor’s children, per stirpes.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Court Rules That Trust Acted as a Substitute Will

by Stephen Bilkis

A man created a living trust. A living trust is one where all the man’s assets are put in a trust with a bank or trust company and the income earned by his assets will be paid out to the man himself. The problem with this living trust the man created was that he bought the trust document in a pre-printed fill-in-the-blank form: he never went to a lawyer to have the lawyer create a trust document for him, tailor-cutting the provisions of the document so that it would fit his circumstances.

The trust he created came in a document that was sent to him in the three-ring-binder contained a Certificate of Trust, and Affidavit of Trust, a Living Will, a property power of attorney, a health care power of attorney and a copy of the man’s will which was stapled. The man can just cut out and paste those provisions that he didn’t like and keep the provisions that he did like and wished to retain. Glued to the ring binder is a sticker that showed the name and copyright of the lawyer who created the fill-in-the blank trust and will. The three-ring binder is part of an estate-planning product that also includes a seminar, a handbook and a computer software program which allows the person who purchased the portfolio to create a will and print it.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the living trust was created sometime on April 30, 1996. On the same date, the man also executed a will. The man’s will provided that all of the properties of his estate which were included in the living trust will be revoked upon his death and the entirety of his estate will pass on to his dear friend. This provision was later amended by the testator before his death on September 9, 1996. The amended provided that only 99.75 per cent of the entire estate under the living trust will be given to his dear friend and the remaining .25 will pass on to another friend.

Published on: May 30, 2012

Court Decides Legal Fees for Estate Administration

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A decedent was survived by his wife, an adult son who is the petitioner herein, and four adult grandchildren. A New York Probate Lawyer said the decedent’s wife is a person under disability and her interests are being represented by a guardian ad litem appointed for that purpose by the court. Although SCPA 1404 examinations were demanded by the respondents, the examinations were never conducted, the parties having promptly entered into settlement negotiations.

The propounded instrument bequeaths the entire estate to the decedent’s lifetime trust, which in turn leaves the entire estate to petitioner, to the exclusion of the surviving spouse and grandchildren. The parties have entered into a stipulation of settlement, subject to the court’s approval, which permits the will’s admission to probate, 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.

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.

Published on: February 28, 2012

Court Decides Will and Trust Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

A resident of Connecticut died in 1936. He left a will duly admitted for validation in the State of Connecticut. He created a testamentary trust providing payment of the one third of the income to a life beneficiary, his nephew. The nephew bearing the same name as his uncle is a resident of Cattaraugus County, New York. The instant proceeding is brought in the Surrogate’s Court, Cattaraugus County in connection with the administration of the estate of the deceased nephew. The proceeding follows proceedings earlier brought in the validation court of Fairfield County, State of Connecticut referable to intermediate and final accountings of the testamentary trustee, a Chemical Bank.

A petition of a trust company for the determination of the validity and enforceability of claim of a chemical bank to the last will and testament of the man was filed. New York Probate Lawyers said that the trust company was the appointed representative for the administration of the estate and the said chemical bank was the beneficiary of a large trust set up by a will. The facts in support of the petition have been agreed to by opposing counsel in a written condition. It states that the man properly accepted to validate his will in the state of his residency.

The life beneficiary of a man died and with his death, payments of income terminated as well as the trust. The remaining principal of the trust was directed to be paid over to the designated remaindermen.

Published on: February 2, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

The case regarding Genevieve Tisdale’s estate is about getting a jury trial in connection to the revocable trust executed by her at the same time with her last will and testament. Ms. Tisdale died on October 6, 1995. It is said that her will dated December 15, 1994 was executed with about $2.1 million revocable trust. The estate in the will was under $400,000. The trust fund is the one to be used for estate taxes and other expenses. The estate is divided to different beneficiaries, including charities. The bequest ranged from $10,000 to $200,000. There was an amendment made to the cash gifts made on July 31, 1995.

Michael L. McDermott was the draftsman of both the will and the trust. He is also named as the guardian of the net estate except the tangibles. He is to allocate the state according to the will. If the trust fails, the will also is refers to its terms. Mr. McDermott, a New York Probate Lawyer mentioned, is an Illinois lawyer not admitted in New York. Three months before the testatrix signed the will was the first time that they had met. This issue was already submitted to court.

Five of the family beneficiaries, which are all nieces and nephews, petitioned the court to withhold the trust in both proceedings after the will enter probate. They also asked that in both cases, there be a jury trial on their protest about the execution, capacity, undue influence and fraud. The recipients particularly object to, allegedly, the charitable beneficiaries reflecting Mr. McDermott’s choices and not the decedent’s. They cited the provision for twenty-five percent of the trust remainder is distributable to Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama, which is Mr. McDermott’s alma mater. Twenty-five percent of the trust remainder is given to the Evans Scholars Foundation where Mr. McDermott is a trustee. Twenty-five percent of the trust remainder is gifted to National Louis University located in the Chicago suburb where Mr. McDermott lives. Lastly, $250,000 is distributable to Misericordia Home in Chicago. They also claim that Ms. Tisdale is your typical New Yorker, who has lived in the Upper East side of Manhattan most of her adult life.

Published on: February 2, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

In the matter of the will of Mary Cairo’s estate, the grandson, Joseph L. Cairo, filed a contest claiming that the more than one-half of the remaining estate was assigned to charity. The litigation regarding this, the court found that the grandson was not eligible for this case as he is not to benefit from a successful contest. A New York Probate Lawyer got the information that Mr. Cairo was already been provided for by Ms. Cairo in her lifetime. His ineligibility was determined by the words in the will that said that she makes no bequest to her grandson for good and sufficient reasons.

Mr. Cairo, the grandson, after the decision appealed that the counsel fees and other fees be taken from the estate. The reason he presented was that in the process of his contest, the construction of the will was also done. Two of the charitable beneficiaries and the Attorney General countered this.

In an interpretation of the will, the court can allocate an amount that they deem reasonable for counsel fees and other expenses that had been incurred in the process. The Attorney General and the charitable beneficiaries argued that what happened was not a construction of the will and did not benefit the State. They made a case as well about the request not specifically stating that it is to understand the will. The question now that the court needs to determine is if the litigation involved a construction of the will according to a NYC Probate Lawyer.

Published on: January 21, 2012

Probate Court Rules on No Contest Clause

by Stephen Bilkis

In February 14, 1980, the will of decedent was contested by her daughter. The decedent died in January 11, 1980, and the will questioned is dated December 1, 1979. In the dececent’s last will and testament, she bequeathed all her property to five charities. There is a gift of Israeli bonds to the State of Israel. The will also stated that her daughter receives no part of her estate as she had adequately provided for her in her lifetime.

The will further specifies that in case that the will fails and becomes useless all the property will go to her trustees. In conformance to the trust agreement that she has set up while she was alive. The inter vivos trust was also set on the same date of the will. The paperwork says that the trust will be funded if in any case that the gift, devise or legacy made under the last will and testament made by decedent will be ineffective. The trustees on the document are the same people named as executors of her will. Meaning, the trustees will give the income from the fund to the same charities she has named in her will, says a New York Probate Lawyer. After five years, the charities then will receive the principal divided equally between them.

Ms. Lippner’s will included a “no contest” clause. From the records, it specifically stated that any person who will contest the will, it does not matter what reason will lose the right to any part of the estate which, would have been theirs. Aside from these papers documenting litigation between the petitioner and her daughter, were attached. It had the history of the litigation to show that Ms. Epstein, although the only descendant was really intended to be excluded from the estate distribution.