Wills

Published on: June 10, 2012

Trustee Brings Action to be Reimbursed for Expenses

by Stephen Bilkis

The facts:

A mother (hereinafter The Mother) lived with her son (hereinafter The Son). The son was devoted to his mother. A New York Probate Lawyer said she was unable to handle her own affairs, thus, he supervised her medical care. He managed her financial affairs and made sure that she paid her bills timely.

On 25 August 2000, the son died. He was then 64 and his mother was almost 96. The son executed a will dated 23 May 1996. In his will, he left his residuary estate in trust for the benefit of his mother. He named two persons, the petitioners (petitioner-one and petitioner-two), as executors of his will and trustees of the residuary trust. Under the terms of the trust, the trustees were to pay the net income to the mother, quarter-annually. In addition, the trustees were authorized to invade principal for the benefit of the mother; and upon the death of the mother, the trust terminates and that from the principal then remaining, certain amounts would be given to the petitioners and to other individuals.

Published on: June 1, 2012

Court Discusses Issuing Preliminary Letters Testementary

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 14 December 2005, a decedent died leaving a will dated 13 September 2005 (the “2005 Will”) and a prior will dated 24 January 2003 (the “2003 Will”). The 2003 Will nominates the decedent’s daughter-one as executor and the decedent’s daughter-two as successor executor. The 2005 Will also nominates daughter-one as executor. The decedent was also survived by her other daughter, daughter-three.

Under the 2003 Will, all shares that the decedent had in any companies or corporations is bequeathed to the decedent’s two grandchildren equally and the decedent’s bank accounts to her daughters, daughter-one and daughter-three, equally. The 2003 Will further provides for bequests of tangible personal property. The 2003 Will gives the decedent’s cooperative apartment in equal shares to the two grandchildren. The remainder of the estate is bequeathed in one-third (1/3) shares to each of the decedent’s three daughters.

Published on: May 26, 2012

Court Authenticates Last Will and Testament

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Surrogates Court of Suffolk County. The matter at hand involves the issue of proving the last will and testament of the deceased, Sigrid C. Lockwood as a will of real property and personal property. The case also deals with a petition regarding the ancillary letters testamentary for the same estate.

The question is this case is in regard to the wills left by the decedent, Sigrid C. Lockwood. At the time of her death she was living in Norway. This is where she was cremated. She was a United States citizen at the time. She executed a will in December of 1951 which has been offered for probate to this court. She also executed another will in Norway in April of 1953. This will has been probated in Norway. The executor named in the will is requesting letters ancillary from the court.

Case Background

Published on: May 1, 2012

Plaintiff Injured at Construction Site

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Michael J. Spence was the plaintiff. The defendants were the Island Estates at Mt. Sinai II, LLC, Gessin Contracting Co., Inc., and Island Estates. Island Estates at Mt. Sinai II and Gessin Contracting were also third-party plaintiffs while Lakeville Industries was listed as a third-party defendant.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer said the primary plaintiff in this case, Michael J. Spence was injured in 2005 when making a delivery of a countertop to a property at the Mount Sinai Island Estates. In the course of the delivery, a rut in the ground caused him to trip, resulting in an injury. Lakeville Industries was the employer of Spence at the time. There are other complaints, separate from this which alleges negligence and violation of labor laws against Lakeville and the third-party complaint accuses Lakeville of negligence and breach of contract, among other things related to improperly protecting and insuring their employees.

Published on: April 30, 2012

Court Validates a Will

by Stephen Bilkis

A man filed a motion to withdraw a waiver and consent he did for the legal validation of his cousins will. And, this motion is opposed by the primary representative of the estate and the four charities who are the beneficiaries under certain instruction.

This happened five months after the death of his cousin, he did a waiver and consent; however, an attorney appeared for him a month after, and this is also the return date of the citation in this proceeding, and indicated that he wanted to withdraw his consent for the legal processing of validation of the will. The assets consists of personal property valued more than a million.

The instruction was done when his cousin was about 95 years old. The single page, two-sided tool is a downloadable legal form and does not appear to be attorney supervised. The opposite side of the form shows his shaky and weak signature, and the signature of the two witnesses. One of those witnesses now serves as a primary person appointed to perform the will and formerly served as one of legal guardians. Apparently, the other witness was an aide at the facility where she resided at the time she signed the instruction.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Decides Real Property Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Roxrun Estates, Inc. et al, are the respondents-appellants, and the Roxbury Run Village Association, Inc et al., is the other appellant-respondent and defendants.

Background

A New York Probate Lawyer said in 1972, Roxbury Run Corporation proposed to build a 500-unit townhouse development in Delaware County. A declaration was drawn up which laid out the rights and responsibilities of the owners who would purchase units in the development, as well as the property owners’ association. The Roxbury Run Village Association was created for the express purpose of building and looking after the various common areas, including recreational areas, which would be utilized by the members of the development. Two types of members were included in the association. Class A were owners of improved property. Class A members received a vote for every improved unit. Roxbury Run, on the other hand, was entitled to three votes as a Class B member for every property they owned. By December of 1979, all Class B memberships were to cease, after an amendment was made to the original agreement moving that date back from 1982.

Published on: April 26, 2012

Court Decides Validity of German vs. U.S. Will

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1924, a woman died a resident of New York County leaving a will which was validated in New York County. In her will, she created a trust, the income of which was to go to her brother for life, the remainder to his next of kin, subject, however, to a power in him to make a different disposition by a general power of appointment in his will.

Her brother, the designated life beneficiary and heir of the power, was an American-born citizen who resided in Germany with his German wife and three German children for many years preceding his death there. In the fall of 1939, allegedly because he ‘was worried about the possibility that the German Government would confiscate the trust, he executed a will in which he exercised his power of appointment in favor of the petitioner. The will was executed in the German language and was formally valid under the law of Germany. At the suggestion of his son, the will was delivered for safekeeping into the hands of a notary in Berlin where it was placed in an office safe.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that in 1943, four years after the brother executed the will; the New York trustee of the Foster trust was served by the Alien Property Custodian with Vesting Order which vested in the United States Government the entire interest of the brother and his next of kin in the trust. Shortly thereafter, more than two years before he died, the building in Berlin in which his will was being stored was burned to the ground in a bombing raid and the will was destroyed.

Published on: April 26, 2012

Court Rules on Validity of Multiple Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman has petitioned the court to vacate the probate of a will of a deceased person whom she is not related to and to permit her to file objections to the validation. The deceased man’s will was admitted to validation by the court and the estate was distributed in April, 2006.

According to records, answers and objections to her petition were filed by the executor, a grandson of the decedent, and two other grandchildren. Following a conference with the court, the parties attempted to reach a settlement, but were unsuccessful. A New York Probate Lawyer said that thereafter the matter was submitted to the court for a decision on the papers, including a reply and an additional affidavit in support of the petition.

The Petitioner raises several arguments in support of the relief requested. Primarily that she is in possession of a later will, in which she is named executor and a beneficiary. She states that she was neither cited nor waived citation in the proceeding which granted validation to the 1992 will, and that she intends to file objections to the validation based on the later will. She also alleges that the deceased, who died while an inpatient at a nursing home in New Jersey, was a resident of Manhattan, and not of Rockland County as alleged in the petition which resulted in the validation decree, and that, therefore, the proceeding should not have been brought in this court. The Petitioner filed the purported will in this court and filed her petition to vacate validation. The respondents, by their answer and objections, allege that the petition should be denied because the petitioner is guilty of laches, based on her unexplained and unjustified delay in offering the purported later will for validation and in bringing the instant proceeding, which will result in substantial prejudice to them if she is successful. They further argue that petitioner is unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, because the 2001 purported will is not likely to be admitted to validation. They maintain that the 2001 document is suspicious on its face, that the deceased lacked sufficient capacity to execute a will in 2001 and that the 2001 document was the product of undue influence.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Determines Which Will to Submit to Probate

by Stephen Bilkis

The guardian of the decedent’s estate has filed for a petition and requested the court to allow the probate of the alleged will. The petition also contained that a fee should be established by the court.

The testator of the will and testament has passed away. He left his wife and 3 children his estate. The widow was named the guardian as stated in the decedent’s will. The widow at that time is afflicted with dementia. The two older sons of the testator were also named as co-guardians for their mother.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the two sons requested a probate of a specific will. A few months later, they filed another probate on another will and requested that the previous motion be denied by the court.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Was Fraud Involved in Will Execution?

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1958, a woman from Salamanca, New York died and left her surviving two sons and daughter, all of full age, and several grandchildren. A document purporting to be the last will and testament of the deceased, with a petition for validation was duly filed with the court. The will submitted for validation was drafted by an attorney of Salamanca, New York, a man with many years of experience as a practicing attorney and was witnessed by the attorney and a young woman employed by the drafter of the will. In the proceeding, the petitioner seeks permission of the court to withdraw his waiver of citation consenting to the validation of the will of the deceased.

The petition for probate of will was verified by one of the two sons of the deceased, and accompanying the petition was the waiver and consent of the son which consents that the paper writing bearing date 1955 purporting to be the last will and testament of the deceased to be admitted to validation.

A New York Probate Lawyer said a citation was duly issued, addressed to the surviving daughter of the deceased, and proof of due service upon the said daughter and proof of mailing notice of validation to the other heirs was filed. The petition was verified; the waiver of citation was signed and verified the same date which also is the date of death of the deceased. The citation was returnable before the court at the court room in the forenoon of that day, but at the request of the proponent, the matter was adjourned and re-adjourned from time to time until the subscribing witnesses were examined.