Wills

Published on: February 1, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

In the matter of Mary Cairo’s will, a question has been raised whether Joseph L. Cairo her grandson has the right to raise a dispute against the terms for the distribution of the will. The decedent named three different charities as the beneficiary of the remaining part of her estate. This is after her sister, Elizabeth Jennings, gets her cooperative house and all its furnishings, including personal property. In the will, according to a New York Probate Lawyer, she says that if her sister dies before her then her share will also be divided equally between the three charities. The sixth article of the will specifically said “I make no bequest to my grandson, Joseph L. Cairo, and I make no bequests to my daughters-in-law, Antoinette Cairo and Audrey Cario, for good and sufficient reason.”

That in the interpretation of a will, the first rule that the court follows is to determine the actual intention of the decedent. The second rule is to establish such an intent from will as a whole and not just part. The will undisputedly show that Mary Cairo wanted to leave the bulk of her estate to charity. Not only with the bequest but even with the provision that if her sister predeceased her, the bequest to her sister will go to the charities. To make it clear, she even named Joseph L. Cairo and others in her will and stated she is not giving them anything.

This was the basis for Joseph L. Cairo’s argument that he has the right to contest the bequest to charity. He says that since he was specifically mentioned then he has the right. Manhattan Probate Lawyers said that by law there are qualifications that must be met to determine a person’s right to contest a bequest to charity. The first is if the gift is more than one-half of the residuary estate. It can only be objected to by people who stand to benefit from a successful contest. This is where the intent of the decedent’s intention comes in. In her will, she showed that she did not want Joseph Cairo to have any part of her will. She wanted her estate to go to her sister and charity. The courts declaring that if they allow Joseph Cairo to contest, then it will be like saying it is possible for him to get something from the estate which is not what Mary Cairo wanted. IT is the court’s decision that Joseph Cairo does not have standing to contest the will as to the disposition to charity. He is also charged $10 personally.

Published on: February 1, 2012

Court Rules on Terrorem Clause

by Stephen Bilkis

John A. Stiehler died on July 29, 1984. At the time of his death he had a wife and three adult children from prior marriage. The executor of his estate filed his last will and testament, dated May 16, 1973, and an addition to his will dated September 8, 1982 for probate. He stated in his will that since his wife likes his home in Florida so much, she is given right and privilege to it as long as she lives or until she gets married again. The codicils are also to her benefit. A New York Probate Lawyer obtained information the will stated that since he has been generous to his wife, a contest of the will or any of its supplements will result to her forfeiting her right to the benefits of the will.

The wife filed objections to probate on January 2, 1985. She objected to both will and codicil. After which, she amended her petition to ask for an addition to the will dated July 24, 1984 be added to probate. This codicil did not include the terrorem clause and the limitation with regard to the remarriage. She ultimately withdrew her will contest and contested to the probate of the May 26, 1973 will and the September 8, 1982 codicil but reserved the right to petition for probate of the instrument dated July 24, 1984. In a later document, she also withdrew the petition for probate for the July 24, 1984 codicil. In this case, the wife is asking for an advance to the bequest that is due to her. In an instant proceeding, she asks for the property in Florida.

The executor of the estate contested that the wife had violated the no-contest clause of the codicil and therefore, is not entitled to any of the bequests. The court determined that the first issue to address is if the wife violated the terrorem clause of the will. For this, according to Nassau County Probate Lawyers, they need to establish the intention of the testator. It appears that he had wanted his wife and children to be provided for. The court said that contest can mean different things depending on the case. There are cases wherein the simple filing of an objection even if it was not tried was considered a contest. There are also cases where in order to be deemed a contest the protest should have pushed through in litigation.

Published on: January 31, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

In the handwritten will of Mabel Alexander dated March 18, 1952, she denied that she is the mother of Marjorie Alexander and Bernard Alexander. A New York Probate Lawyer said that she stated that even though Marjorie and Bernard were raised as her children and were part of her family, they were not hers. She stated that she got a legal separation from her husband Benjamin Alexander, and she was just providing his room and board. She also included a statement that they did not live as man and wife after August 1950 when they got the decree of separation.

Marjorie, Bernard and Benjamin filed an objection against the submitted last will and testament. Soon after Benjamin died, and the executor of his will replaced him as the contestant. As the law states, since the right to contest is a property right, it survives the death of the person contesting. A Staten Island Probate Lawyer said the court ordered a trial for the disputed paternity of Marjorie and Bernard, and the possibility that Benjamin may also have an interest in the will of Mabel. In this trial, the only issue is to be addressed is whether Marjorie and Bernard are children of the decedent and not if they are legitimate or illegitimate.

Mabel was married three times. The first was ended by a divorce in 1907. The second marriage to Albert Norwalk was ended when Mabel divorced him in 1922. He claims to have fathered Marjorie. The last was to Benjamin Alexander, who asserts paternity to Bernard Alexander. Mabel got a decree of separation for this marriage.

Published on: January 31, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

With an Estate amounting to almost two million dollars, E. Louise Grupp died in September 25, 1992. The will that was given for probate was only dated two weeks before Mr. Grupp died. The will was dated September 11, 1992. The executors who wear named in the will were Joan E. Maloney, Esq., and Eleanor G. Dunn. There was an older will filed with the court that was dated July 9, 1992. Interested parties had examined the witnesses to the will.

The will dated September 11, 1992 sets up the $300,000 trust for Ms. Nitterauer and places another $150,000 in trust for her sons. Aside from that she gets personal effects and the testator’s house. From what Brooklyn Probate Lawyers gathered, the remaining part of the estate of the deceased goes to the Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company as trustee for the Buffalo Foundation to be held as a perpetual charitable fund in memory of Mrs. Grupp and her late husband. Nine charities are assigned as income beneficiaries of fund assets in various percentages totaling 95% of net income, with the recipients of the remaining 5% to be selected by the Foundation. If the foundation fails to qualify as a charity or any of the other named organizations then the trustee will select from qualifying charities.

A terrorem clause was also in this will. That if anyone contests the probate or any part of the will, their interest will be forfeited, and it will be treated like that person died before the testator.

Published on: January 30, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Charles J. Tate, acting as the administrator of the estate of Nicholas C. Tate filed a case for gross negligence, malpractice, non-feasance, misfeasance, malfeasance and breach of fiduciary relationship against John J. McQuade as the guardian ad litem, or the court-appointed guardian of Nicholas’ interest with his son’s will. He is seeking money damages for money and also for punitive damages.

After Nicholas’ son died in March 31, 1971, the court-appointed Mr. McQuade as his guardian because of a disability and Mr. Tate was 90 years old at that time. As the administrator, Mr. Tate says that Mr. McQuade to file a will contest for excessive gift to charity. Whereby if successful would have increased Nicholas’ share in his son’s estate. The son left some personal property to his mother and the rest of the estate to the University of Detroit for educational purposes. This was dated and verified in September 16, 1971. A New York Probate Lawyer said that the mother filed her objections to this will through her own counsel as an excessive gift.

The mother died while the probate for the son’s will was still on-going. Before she died, she had set up a trust for Nicholas her husband, and the rest was to be given to Mr. McQuade as the guardian ad litem. He was also named as the executor of the mother’s will. Though a lawyer, Mr. McQuade was not the one who drafted the mother’s will.

Published on: January 29, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Alexander Singer filed an appeal with the court with regard to him violating the terrorem clauses of his father’s will. When his father, Rabbi Joseph Singer, died, his last will and testament was dated April 15, 2003. The will put his daughter, Vivian Singer, as the executor of the will. With a trust agreement bulk of his personal property, his home in Brooklyn and $200,000 was to be given to his daughter. The will stated that the bequest was for his daughter’s unusual dedication, and he realizes that his daughter gave her life to take care of him. To his son, he gives $15,000 and the remainder of the estate will be divided between his son and his daughter equally.

Rabbi Singer’s will have two terrorem clauses. The first, as a New York Probate Lawyer said is like any standard ‘no contest’ clause. “If any beneficiary shall, in any manner, directly or indirectly, contest, object to or oppose, or attempt to contest, object to or oppose, the probate of or validity of this Will or the revocable trust agreement created by me, or any part of my estate plan or any gifts made by me, or any of the provisions of this Will or of the revocable trust agreement created by me, in any court or commence or prosecute any legal proceeding of any kind in any court to set aside this Will or the revocable trust agreement created by me or any part of my estate plan or any gifts made by me, then in that event, such beneficiary, and all of such beneficiary’s issue, shall forfeit and cease to have any right or interest whatsoever under this Will or under the revocable trust agreement created by me, or in any portion of my estate, and, in such event, I hereby direct that my estate and the trust estate under such revocable trust agreement shall be disposed of in all respects as if such beneficiary had predeceased me without issue.”

The second one was specifically for his son Alexander. This condition expressly states that his son should not contest any part of the will, the trust agreement, any of the estate plans and gifts made by Rabbi Singer. It further says that his son should not take his daughter, Vivian, to a Bet Din. A Bet Din according to a Queens Probate Lawyers is a religious court. If his son resorts to any of these proceedings, he will lose his right to any part of the estate, either through the will or the revocable trust agreement.

Published on: January 29, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Arthur D. Norcross, executed a will that gives all his residuary estate to charity. His daughter, because the bequest exceeded half of the estate filed a will contest. The executors countered this contest saying that the daughter had signed an agreement that she will not contest any gift to charity through her father’s will.

The executors move for a summary judgment for this contest on the will to be invalid. The executor also stated that the daughter is not bound to gain anything with the success of the contest. Therefore, she does not have a stand to contest. Queens Probate Lawyers say they do not dispute that the bequest to the charity is more than half of the testator’s estate. What they point out is that in the will, it also states that “’I make no provision in this will, other than the provision in Article FIRST hereof, for my children, HELEN NORCROSS CEDER and ARTHUR D. NORCROSS, JR., not from any lack of affection, but because I have adequately provided for their welfare by inter vivos deeds of trust and otherwise.”

The law does not prevent any person from giving all his estate to charity, nor does it require for them to give any part of the estate to relatives. The law aims to prevent giving an undue portion to charity when relatives have a better claim.

Published on: January 28, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Edward Rogowsky died in March of 2001 leaving behind his partner, Peter McGarry and two children, Joshua D. Rogowsky and Mark L. Rogowsky. Reports reached a New York Probate Lawyer that Rogowsky executed his last will and testament leaving behind a chain of residential premises or apartments at Glen Road Southold, New York. According to further reports, Rogowsky made McGarry the sole beneficiary of the residential premises as well as all his other assets except for $20,000 worth of property to his two nephews.

On the same year, 2001, the Kings County court, seeing everything has been done in a legal and proper order, granted all rights to McGarry according to Rogowsky’s last will and testament. Unfortunately, Rogowsky’s two sons filed a case against McGarry on charges of fraud and other charges that are in connection with their father’s estate.

Apparently, Rogowsky’s sons were already going to contest their father’s will and testament in 2001 but McGarry made a promise that he will share whatever profit he will receive from the apartments in Southold, New York. But according to accounts no such promise was honored by McGarry. He in fact, he sold the apartments and the house in Southold in 2006 and kept all the cash for himself. Rogowsky’s sons also claimed that McGarry already found a new partner in life, forgetting all about their father and the promise he made to them about equally sharing the profits of their father’s estate. It was also discussed during the trial that when Rogowsky was still alive, he repeatedly told his sons, in front of McGarry that he meant to transfer ownership of the apartments and house to his sons. Further, McGarry allegedly promised that he will respect Rogowsky’s intention of giving the properties to his sons. Apparently that was what made McGarry promise the Rogowsky brothers that he will equally share all profits to all three of them. Sadly, no such thing happened and McGarry kept it all to himself according to the charges. Rogowsky’s sons’ actions to file a case against McGarry are based on the McGarry’s promise to fulfil the last wishes of their father before he died even though it was not included in Rogowsky’s will and testament.

Published on: January 28, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 12, 1992, Louis Rosen died in a mental facility in California, allegedly leaving behind his entire estate to Warren Silverman as his primary beneficiary. According to reports that reached New York Probate Lawyer, the last will that was left by Rosen was written during the time when he was already determined to be mentally ill. This means that the Will naming Warren to be the primary beneficiary of Rosen’s estate is invalid according to existing laws. Also, according to the evidences presented at court by the other surviving relatives of Rosen, Warren and Warren’s mother Miriam exerted excessive influence to the deceased making them the only people who had access to Rosen’s financial resources four years before he died.

Four years before Rosen died, Miriam already moved into Rosen’s apartment and took care of everything for him, including his financial affairs. This was confirmed by Rosen’s accountant because he claimed he personally saw Miriam “bossing” Rosen around. He also claimed that Miriam had access and even had control over Rosen’s bank account including his personal checks. This is one of the reasons why Rosen’s other relatives have filed a case against Warren saying that the only reason why Rosen had named him primary executor and beneficiary of all his estate was because of the influence of his mother Miriam over Rosen at the time Rosen was already mentally unstable.

The court also believed, upon seeing the evidences presented that Rosen was indeed under no mental condition to knowingly decide for himself anymore. Reports that reached a Long Island Probate Lawyers said that there are several accounts when Rosen was found lost and only in his underwear by the local police. The last time they were able to find him was in 1990 where he was taken to a nearby hospital for treatments. Friends and relatives also noticed the changes in Rosen’s behaviour, saying he was already incapable to keeping his personal hygiene. It was actually during this time when Miriam moved in and took care of everything for Rosen. It was also during this time, when Rosen made deposits, supposedly gifts to Miriam’s children amounting to almost $10,000 each. After that, he allegedly made a transfer of a staggering $1.5 million to Warren and Miriam. These supposedly cash gifts and other properties left by Rosen to Warren are what the other relatives of Rosen are now objecting to.

Published on: January 27, 2012

Lillian Sandow had two wills

by Stephen Bilkis

Lillian Sandow had two wills. One dated July 16, 1947 which was the one presented to the court for probate, and the other one was dated February 16, 1945. In the February 16, 1945 will, there were two beneficiaries declared as sole legatees. They were contending the July 16, 1947 will as a forgery. They are saying that the last three pages of the will which had the signature were authentic, and the first four pages were substituted.

According to a New York Probate Lawyer, the first four pages are the ones that contained the legacies and the appointment of the executrix. The last three pages of the signature of Ms. Sandow, the witnesses’ signature and the powers of attorney. They cited this and much on a previous case of Hinderson’s will and Teller’s will. In both these cases, the mere allegation of fraud caused the will to be vacated. In these cases though, the court had established that the fraud was in stopping the filing of any contest against the will. It was not an attack on the will itself. They also failed to notice that in both cases, the fraud was established in the preliminary hearing.

The petitioners claim there was no fraud in the withholding of the earlier will, and allegedly they found the earlier will in the office of a lawyer, who was not connected, in any way, to the parties. They also said that they questioned the authenticity of the will the same night that it was read and one consulted an attorney about it. He was advised that not being a beneficiary without an earlier will that shows he was part of is not going to be accepted by the court. A Manhattan Probate Lawyer mentioned that it was only after the older will was found that they felt they had a stand to contest the will says a New. They contest does not name the perpetrators of the forgery, but the words are directed to the executrix and her attorney as she is the sole beneficiary of the will.