Wills

Published on: April 11, 2012

Court Conducts an Accounting Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

Before the Nassau County Surrogate Court is the Public Administrator’s motion to dismiss the objections in a contested accounting proceeding.

The woman decedent, a resident and domiciliary of Nassau County, died testate. She was survived by her daughter and three sons.

Decedent executed a last will and testament bequeathing her residuary estate equally among her four children and appointed one of her son as executor. The son-executor filed a petition for probate of the will and for letters testamentary. Decedent’s daughter and executor were each represented by counsel while the other two sons appeared personally in the probate proceeding. The other children of the decedent objected to the appointment of the executor. The beneficiaries entered into a settlement, in open court, for the probate of the will and that they would appoint the Public Administrator as administrator of the estate. The will was admitted for probate and, at the same time, letters of administration were issued to the Public Administrator.

Published on: April 11, 2012

Court Decides Appropriate Fee for Guardian ad Litem

by Stephen Bilkis

A decedent was survived by his wife (a person under disability represented by a guardian ad litem), an adult son (petitioner) and four adult grandchildren and the issue of a predeceased child. Under the decedent’s will, his entire estate was left to the decedent’s lifetime trust, which in turn leaves the entire estate to petitioner, to the exclusion of the surviving spouse and grandchildren.

Subsequently, a stipulation of settlement was entered into by the parties which was then approved by the court for the best interest of all parties concerned. The approved settlement permitted the will’s admission to probate (estate litigation or will contest), 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.

The question now is the amount of appropriate fee for the guardian ad litem.

Published on: April 10, 2012

Court Determines Appropriate Legal Fees for Probate Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In an accounting proceeding, the court is presented with the issue of determining the amount of attorney’s fees and accounting fees to be granted to be charged against the estate of the decedent.

Decedent is a resident of Nassau County who left a will that was admitted for probate by the Surrogate’s Court of Nassau County. Letters testamentary was issued to decedent’s daughter. The decedent was survived by his seven children. The will stipulated that equal shares of the residuary estate shall be divided among the surviving children of the decedent.

The accounting proceeding is the first and final settlement of account made by the executor covering a period of four years. The summary statement submitted by the accounting party showed the amount of $955,030.92. Some of the children of decedent filed objections regarding the accounting statement. A New York Probate Lawyer said in a settlement agreement entered into by the parties, the executor reduced her commissions for payments to the objectants. The agreement also stipulated that certain estate’s tangible properties will be given to the latter.

Published on: April 10, 2012

Court Decides Payment of Legal Fees for Administration of an Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

A resident of Uniondale, on 26 December 1998, died. The decedent left a will dated 15 June 1979 which bequeathed her entire residuary estate to her nephew, who post-deceased the decedent. The Public Administrator was appointed temporary administrator of the estate on 14 April 2005. Decedent’s will was admitted to probate (estate litigation or will contest) on 11 May 2010 and letters of administration were issued, thereafter, to the Public Administrator. The account of the Public Administrator was initially filed on 6 July 2010.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the subject matter presented before the court is the first and final account of the Public Administrator for the estate of the decedent and the approval of the payment of fees to the attorney for the Public Administrator in connection with the administration of the estate (estate administration).

The Public Administrator sought the approval of the accounting, approval of the commissions, the fixing of fees for the services of the attorney and accountant, authorization to distribute the net estate to the court appointed administrator of the estate and the release of the administrator from the surety bond.

Published on: April 9, 2012

Court Determines if it has Subject Matter Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

On 28 December 1993, the decedent died. On 28 January1994, The decedent’s Last Will and Testament was admitted to probate (no will contest) and letters testamentary were issued.

The issue here (estate litigation) is whether or not an order consenting to a transfer to the Nassau County court of an action currently pending in Supreme Court, New York County is proper.

The respondent has argued that the Nassau County court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the dispute and that it is not the proper venue for the case.

Published on: April 8, 2012

Petitioner Alleges Fraud, Undue Influence

by Stephen Bilkis

A man executed a will in October 28, 1970. In this will, ninety per cent of his estate is left to charities and the remaining ten per cent is left to his sister. In this will also a bank and trust company was named as executor of the will.

After the testator died, the sister filed the petition for probate of the October 28, 1970 will. But the sister also produced a purported codicil executed by the testator dated November 20, 1970. In this codicil, the testator allegedly revoked the nomination of the bank and trust company as executor and instead nominated his sister as executrix.

Two charitable organizations who were distributees of the decedent in the October 28, 1970 will filed objections to the probate of the will and the codicil. The charitable organizations also filed a motion for leave of court to examine the witnesses of both the will and the codicil, the sister, the bank and trust company and the attorney who drafted the will and the codicil.

Published on: April 7, 2012

Man Dies with 11 Children, Only 1 Named in Will

by Stephen Bilkis

In January 13, 2007, the father died survived by 11 children: three from the first marriage, four from the second marriage and four alleged non-marital children. The purported will was offered for probate benefits only one child from the first marriage, Angela Manning, who inherits the entire estate and named executrix.

Allegedly, in June 24, 1996, the deceded executed his will. In that he underwent a DNA tests in 2005 and 2006 which revealed that he is the biological father of the claimants who were born long before the execution of the decedent’s will. They claim that the only the non-marital children known or acknowledged after the execution of the will shall be presumed to be inadvertently disinherited as an after born child with whom the same right shall be extended.

Normally, a child is entitled to after born rights if born after execution of the will. There is no exception to this rule other than for a child adopted after the execution of a will, though born previously.

Published on: April 7, 2012

Can a Witness to a Will Signing Also be a Beneficiary?

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York attorney applied for letters of administration upon the request of the executor of a will. The said executor is also the beneficiary and a nephew of the decedent who was a New York resident at the time of her demise. Upon closer observation of the will, it was noticed that the beneficiary also stood as witness to the execution of the same as shown in the document. Under New York law, a witness cannot be a beneficiary at the same time and this is to avoid among others undue influence from coming into the picture in the execution of the will. This is the only question poised that must be determined by the court in this preliminary estate administration proceeding.

The facts of the case showed that the decedent was a resident of New York. She visited her nephews in Canada and there executed a will in front of 2 witnesses that included the designated executor-beneficiary. In the will, the decedent specifically designated her nephew as the sole beneficiary of her estate relating to personal property and also assigned him as the executor of the same. A New York Probate Lawyer said when the time for presentation of the will came, jurisdiction was acquired by the court over the persons of the 2 other nephews of the decedent but they decided not to participate in the proceedings. A consent and waiver from the other brother was obtained and as such there was no will contest that can hamper the proceedings from commencing under normal circumstances save for the perceived defect in the document as regards the formalities required by the law when it comes to the valid execution of a will.

The petitioner in this regard presented proof of the applicable laws in Canada. He argued that since the instrument was executed in the said country, then the formalities required in executing a will is controlled by the law of the place where it was executed. He argued further that since the will is valid where it was executed, then it must also be treated as valid in New York such that the formalities required by New York law in the execution of a last will and testament should not apply in this particular case. Long Island Probate Lawyers said that the nephew assigned as sole beneficiary-executor can also be a witness at the same time in the said instrument is not irregular under Canadian Law even if the same is not permitted in New York should not be an issue as the place where the instrument was made and deemed to have complied with the requirements must always be given weight.

Published on: April 6, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction of a Will Contest

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal filed in the Supreme Court by a party who objected to the probate of the will of a decedent in the Surrogate Court of New York.

The facts of the case state that the decedent was a resident of New York. Sometime in his life, he became a resident of Austria and it was also in the said country that he eventually died. The will of the decedent was submitted for determination in Austria and two years after, the said will was again presented to a Surrogate Court of New York County. A New York Probate Lawyer said that as per reading of the last will and testament, it established the fact that the decedent was a resident of New York and at the same time named a legatee to receive half of the estate. The legatee assigned in the will is also a resident of New York. The properties covered in the will also referred to the properties owned by the decedent and located in the State of New York

The hearing in the court of New York was objected to because of the question regarding the domicile of the decedent. It is alleged that the decedent was a domiciliary of Austria at the time of his death and therefore the court of Austria has jurisdiction in the estate administration of the decedent. Another issue was that the court of Austria has already taken cognizance of the will and in the process of adjudicating on the same. The appellant in effect said that since the Austrian court is already in the process of determining the matters involving the will contest surrounding the will of the decedent, the Surrogate Court of New York must no longer assume jurisdiction because another court which has the proper jurisdiction has already assumed power over the case.

Published on: April 6, 2012

Court Determines of Undue Influence Involved in Will Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A lady testator co-owned an apartment building in New York with her two sisters. The bulk of her estate came from her share in the rent income she derived from the apartments and the value of the apartment building and its premises. She executed a will on September 16, 1997 naming her two sisters as co-executors with their neighbor. She gave legacies to her seven nephews and nieces, the children of her two sisters but she provided that the remainder of her estate will be shared equally by the three executors and in the event that her sisters die ahead of her, the estate will go to their neighbor.

As it turned out, the testator’s two sisters died ahead of her. The testator herself lived until she was 93. She died on June 18, 2006. Their neighbor brought the petition for probate of her will.

The nephews and nieces of the testator all object to the probate of the will on the grounds that it was not genuine; it was not validly executed; it was executed by mistake; it was executed without testamentary capacity; it is the product of their aunt’s neighbor’s undue influence on her; it is the product of duress exercised by their aunt’s neighbor on her; and it was procured by the neighbor’s fraud.