Wills

Published on: October 19, 2011

Barbara Fairbairn, primary beneficiary

by Stephen Bilkis

Barbara Fairbairn, primary beneficiary and second wife of Howard Fairbairn was named primary executor of all his estates in June 1997. But according to New York Will Contest lawyer, Howard’s son, Richard Fairbairn by previous marriage filed an objection on the last will and testament of his father claiming Barbara exercised excessive and unlawful influence on his father and that the Will was executed with fraud. He filed an objection to his father’s will because he believed that Barbara was not the rightful person to execute or manage his father’s properties and other cash and assets. Unfortunately no such evidence was found by the court and Barbara was still and remained to be the sole executor of Howard Fairbairn’s will.

However, Barbara went on and continued filing a case against Howard’s daughter, Carolyn Desilva. Barbara claimed that Carolyn sent two letters Richard Fairbairn’s attorney and that both letters contained false accusations about her personality as well as her family’s reputation. The said letters were also sent to court as part of the evidence against Carolyn. According to reports, Barbara claimed that Carolyn was objecting to Barbara’s inheritance and the letters were her way to contest her father’s will. It was noted that Barbara had already filed a previous case against Carolyn to remove her from participating in her father’s estate. The court ruled in favour of Carolyn saying that there was no sufficient evidence or any cause to bar Carolyn from such participation. That is why Barbara again filed another case, still pursuing to remove Carolyn from her father’s will and testament. Barbara further claimed that Carolyn and Richard conspired against her to remove her from being the executor of their father’s estate. However, Barbara’s only evidence was the letters Carolyn wrote and sent to Richard’s attorney.

Carolyn on the other hand said that she only wrote those letters because she was asked by Richard Fairbairn’s attorney for some background information on Barbara and that those letters were never meant to hurt anybody or discredit anybody from anything. The court also said that it was also true that Carolyn was not properly informed that her personal letters were going to be admitted as evidence against her in the court of law. A New York Estate Administration lawyer was also informed that Carolyn even signed a waiver and consent that her father’s will was valid and that Barbara’s title as primary executor or beneficiary of his estate of properties were all executed legally and lawfully. These documents signed by Carolyn with regards to her father’s estate and also with regards to her father’s chosen executor or beneficiary only made Carolyn’s defence stronger, strong enough to dismiss Barbara’s appeal to remove her from her father father’s last will. Cases like this are handled in a similar way in Queens and Westchester County.

Published on: October 15, 2011

Rogowsky made McGarry the sole beneficiary of the residential premises

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 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.

Sources said that 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 that reached the desk of a judge no such promise was honoured by McGarry. He in fact, 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. Courts in The Bronx and Staten Island are watching this case closely.

Published on: October 13, 2011

Warren to be the primary beneficiary of Rosen’s estate

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 Contest Will 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 New York Estate Attorney 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, according to New York Estate lawyer 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: October 9, 2011

There is a gift of Israeli bonds to the State of Israel

by Stephen Bilkis

In February 14, 1980, the will of Sally Lippner, deceased, was contested by her daughter Suzanne H. Epstein. Ms. Lippner died in January 11, 1980, and the will questioned is dated December 1, 1979. In Ms. Lippner’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 state that her daughter Ms. Epstein receives no part of her estate as she had adequately provided for her in her lifetime.

The will further specify that in case that the will fail 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 Ms. Lippner 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 Estate Administration Lawyer. After five years, the charities then will receive the principal divided equally between them.

Ms. Lippner’s will included a “no contest” clause. A New York Probate Lawyer also said, 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 Ms. Lippner and her daughter, Ms. Epstein, was 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.

Published on: September 21, 2011

Liberals and conservatives can agree? New York Estate Planning Lawyers give their take.

by Stephen Bilkis

The late Anna Nicole Smith brought democrats and republicans together in her historical and controversial lawsuit, claims a New York City Probate Lawyer.

Smith had been married to billionaire J. Howard Marshall II for less than a year when he died. She claimed that he had promised her millions of dollars even though reports show he had cut the star out of his Will.

Smith reportedly tried to use her bankruptcy claim to over ride her late husband’s will and went on to claim that his son had manipulated the situation so he and the rest of the family would receive more money.

Published on: August 29, 2011

Granson is the alleged thief of Grandma’s money reports a New York Probate Attorney

by Stephen Bilkis

We all want to trust those we love to do the right thing. For some, that blind faith in family and loved ones to do what is right may prove to be detrimental. According to a report by a NY Estate Planning Lawyer, when a will, trust or inheritance is concerned, people get dollar signs in their eyes, so much so that they become irrational in their thinking and in turn, in their behavior. Since money is touted as the most important survival tool in our country, once some people have access to it, they will take it even if it belongs to someone that they have loved and respected all of their lives.   Such is the case for an 89 year old woman whose grandson was named the trustee of her estate, which included her house, social security checks and a trust fund that had been gifted to her 35 years ago. Within just two weeks of having been awarded the position of trustee, the grandson began removing money out of his grandmother’s accounts and plugging it back into his own, now defunct, carpet and construction businesses.   The New York Estate Planning Lawyer reports that the elderly woman went from having $105,000 to live on for the rest of her life to losing her house and having her bank account blasted to less than $6000 by her grandson, who was caught after his own mother, the daughter of the elderly woman, realized what he was doing and called authorities.   Though the money is gone and the grandmother is now living in a small trailer with no money, revealed the New York Estate Planning Lawyer, the woman has forgiven her grandson and is worried that if he goes to jail for his crimes against her then she will never see another penny from him, leaving her worse off than before. In Brooklyn and Manhattan this action could be prosecuted by the authorities. It just goes to show that in matters of financial planning, blood relation is not always a guarantee that your finances will be safe.

  If you are concerned with your estate or your inheritance, call a New York Estate Planning Attorney today for guidance and support. Whether you are looking for a beneficiary or wanting to construct a will, a New York Estate Planning Attorney will be there to serve your needs. The law offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates has caring New York Probate Lawyers that can help you plan your estate. Our New York Probate Lawyers can help you probate an estate, write a will or set up a trust. We have convenient offices in New York City, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Suffolk and Nassau County. We want to help you through what may be a difficult time with as little problems as possible and offer a free consultation at 1-800-NYNY-LAW (1-800-696-9529). Call us today to take advantage of this free consultation and speak to a New York Probate Lawyer from our firm.

Published on: July 15, 2011

Tax Gift Rules Can Help Estate Planning

by Stephen Bilkis

There is no inheritance tax for 2010, but that will not benefit most of us who plan to live to 2011 and beyond. The inheritance tax may or may not return in some form in 2011 – Congress hasn’t decided yet – but luckily, the gift rules remain pretty much the same, a New York Estate Lawyer reports.

Gifts of up to $13,000 a year per person to any number of people can be passed on without any taxes whatsoever. Married couples who file jointly can double the amount to $26,000. A Gift Tax Return has to be filed for any gifts over that amount.

That doesn’t mean a gift tax is involved. One can grant a million dollars in gifts, above and beyond the yearly $13,000 before the gift tax. Most people will never have to worry about that. There are a number of other exclusions and provisions regarding gifts and estates, which means reading up on IRS regulations is very important to make the most of your money, a New York Estate Lawyer notes. Lawyers in Brooklyn and Long Island are well versed in these new rules.

Published on: April 8, 2011

Joseph Alexander died November 23, 1975, leaving his adopted son, Ronald Alexander

by Stephen Bilkis

Joseph Alexander died November 23, 1975, leaving his adopted son, Ronald Alexander. After the probate of his will, his son filed a petition contesting the amount given to charities as in excess percentage amount allowed by law. Executors were placed to check if the claim was valid, and the courts were asked to determine the effect of the ‘no contest’ clause of the will.

In his will, he gave all his properties, a flat in Switzerland and $25,000 per year to his son. In the event that his son dies before the end of the trust then the remaining amount will be put back to his estate.

Joseph Alexander also included in the will that in his lifetime, he had provided his son loans. He had paid indebtedness acquired by his son from other people. He expressly states in his last will and testament, from what a New York Will Contest Lawyer gathered, that if his son directly or indirectly oppose the probate of his will, Ronald Alexander will not getting any part of his estate and will only get $1 per annum.