New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

Published on: March 10, 2012

Court Rules on Will involving Same Sex Marriage

by Stephen Bilkis

A man married his same-sex partner in Canada in June 2008. He then executed a last will and testament two months later on August 12, 2008. In that will, he made three bequests to his three brothers and he also made a bequest to his goddaughter. He left the residue of his estate to his same-sex partner. He named his same-sex spouse as the executor of his estate.

In December 2008, the testator died. His same-sex spouse, who was also named executor of his will filed the petition for probate of his deceased spouse’s will. He served the three brothers and the goddaughter with notice of probate. In his petition, he claimed that he is the surviving spouse of the testator and the sole distribute.

Three days after filing the petition for probate, the Surrogate’s Court of New York granted the petition for probate without issuing citations.

Published on: March 9, 2012

Court Decides Will Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

An 89-year old woman had retired and had been living in Florida. But, she executed a will in New York in front of witnesses who were from New York. Seven months after executing her will, she died in New York and was buried in New York.

The will contained about 50 legacies and the establishment of several trusts. Although the will was executed in New York, it was drafted by a lawyer from Florida. The will named four executors: one of her sons who lives in Arizona, her accountant who lives in Florida, a niece by marriage who lives in New York and the son of the niece who lives in New Hampshire. A New York Probate Lawyer said the will did not specifically include her desire to have her will probated or her estate administered in New York or under its laws.

The estate of the testator consisted of 100% ownership in a corporation in New York and her residence (house and lot) in Westchester County. Her estate is valued at $28,000,000.

Published on: March 9, 2012

Authenticity of Will Questioned

by Stephen Bilkis

A postal worker had written and signed his will and testament. Two competent witnesses attested the document. He named his niece by marriage the only heir of his estate. The will was brought to an estate litigation court for probate.

One of his relatives by blood objected the will on reasons that the will was done without comprehending what the meaning of his words in the will was. In denoting his niece by mother, he was without any distinction of the exact piece of possession to be transferred to her.

The Estate Administration courts nominated his wife’s niece as the person who will receive his properties subject of the will.

Published on: March 8, 2012

Petitioner Disputes Will Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The deceased was a French national who became a citizen of the United States. She stayed in New York for thirty years. Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said that during such time, she was employed as a secretary in a law firm. She returned to France as indicated in her residence card. The deceased left assets in New York which consisted of bank and brokerage accounts. She also had real properties in France consisted of an apartment and the personal properties therein. The estate administration was granted to the persons named in the will of the deceased.

The estate litigation in this case sprung from the provisions contained in the two wills, namely, the “French will” and the “New York will” recited that the deceased elected that her will be admitted to original probate in accordance with the laws of New York. Among the dispositions included, among others, the deceased’s life interest in her apartment in France, including the personal and household effects therein. The beneficiaries were her adopted son and friends, and a “mutual aid society.”

The adopted son had a will contest, disputing the jurisdiction of the New York court to allow the will, asserting the question concerning the conflicting laws as to which must govern in the disposition of the properties of the deceased.

Published on: March 8, 2012

Court Decides Trust Income Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

An uncle who lived in Connecticut died in March 1936 and in his will which was probated in Connecticut he created a trust for his nephew who lived in New York. The uncle deposited a certain amount of money with a bank. From this trust account, the bank will pay one-third of the income or interest earned by the trust fund to the nephew until he died.

The uncle’s will provided that the trust agreement between his estate and the trustee bank gives the trustee bank the right to pay itself a commission each time it makes a payment of income to the nephew.

The trustee bank made several payments of interest income from the trust fund to the nephew over the years. But several times, it had made payments of income without reserving a small amount corresponding to its commissions.

Published on: March 7, 2012

Court Decide Status of Guarden ad Litem

by Stephen Bilkis

The probate courts have reviewed an agreement between parties regarding settlement of estates, which was skillfully done by a highly trained court appointee to take care the personal and property interest of one of decedent’s sister who was sick.

Decedent had written a will. In his will, he named his heirs and also named his properties to be freely disposed. He had four siblings still leaving that will receive his bounty and become his beneficiaries to enjoy the continues use, possession and enjoyment of his estate.

The instrument has given all of decedent’s property to his sisters in three equal shares, two of which pass to decedent’s sisters. The will directed that the third equal share be paid over to decedent’s niece. The sick sister rejected this, because as decedent’s sister she had to her share from her brother’s estate. A New York Probate Lawyer said when the formal application was presented to institute an appeal regarding the share of decedent’s surviving sick sister, the court have taken its course.

Published on: March 7, 2012

Court Determines Authenticity of Will

by Stephen Bilkis

Testator in his lifetime had written a will and testament. Upon his death, nine loved ones who he intended to divide his assets to them outlived him. In the instrument, he named his wife and eight children as heirs of his bounty. The instrument was brought to court for litigation. Estate litigation lawyers represented all parties. It was the surviving spouse who brought the will to court for probate proceeding. Attorneys acting in lieu of decedents children questioned the contested will. They alleged failure of the wife to prove due execution and genuineness of the will. The contents of the instrument displayed fraud, intentional representation of material existing fact, and an outside pressure was used which negate the free will of the testator so that the maker of the will lack the necessary mental capacity in making said instrument valid.

Witnesses to the will in favor of the children testified, that in their control were duplicates of the will and testament. The said instrument was attested in the presence of eligible witnesses and their estate lawyers. They testified that the instrument under which they safe kept was an identical copy of the original will made by the decedent. The instrument then was submitted for examination and was granted by the probate court.

New York Probate Lawyer said the eight children of the decedent, represented by their estate lawyers then filed a motion for summary judgment before the estate administration courts wherein they seek an order denying probate of the supposed last will and testaments submitted by the wife. In support of the motion, affirmations from other witnesses were also forwarded to estate litigation courts such as additional memorandum of law and reply memorandum.

Published on: March 6, 2012

Court Rules on Will Contest between Brothers

by Stephen Bilkis

A testator in her lifetime made a will. Her husband and three children outlived her. The will was brought to a probate court for legal procedure. Named in the instrument were the three adult children as co-executor with full power over the estate of the decedent. Not mentioned in the will was the name of her living disabled husband. After a thorough study of the contested will, the court found that the interest of the physically impaired husband needed to be taken care of. Thereby the court appointed a guardian ad litem to make necessary action to protect the interest of the ward.

The court appointee filed his report wherein he indicated that he had no objection to the will subject of probate proceeding. He mentioned in his report the unfriendly action of the three adult children of the decedent. He was hopeful that the best interest of the estate would be served by an appointment of an independent part to administer the estate under litigation.

One of the adult children did not object the contents of the recommendation. Suffolk County Probate Lawyers said the mentioned beneficiary son had been living in the decedent’s residence since the time of the testator’s death. He maintained the tear and wear of the dwelling place even if heat and electricity were brought to an untimely end. He believed that his action toward the care of the decedent’s dwelling should be recognized by the probate court and assigned him a letter testamentary as the suited fiduciary of his mother’s bounty.

Published on: March 6, 2012

Decedents Claim Fraudulent Will Contest

by Stephen Bilkis

A will was written, signed, attested, to conform to the legal requirements of law on probate. The testator’s intention to give his estate to his heirs was set. The presence of competent witnesses to a Notary Public was noted.

Children of the decedent who acted as respondents moved to force the surviving spouse, the lawyer-drafter of the will and the accountant of the decedent to reproduce the original and/or photocopies of earlier wills. Original photocopies of the letters between decedent and the attorney-drafter and the unrevised photocopies of notes taken by the lawyer during two separate in-private meetings with the decedent was subject of the probate.

A New York Probate Lawyer said th decedent’s children believed that those documents controlled by decedent’s wife were material pieces of proof. Testator’s wife was unwilling to disclose the true and original wills and testament. Children alleged that the agenda of several private meetings held and organized by decedent’s wife, probate lawyers and the accounts have something to do with the fraudulent wills contested in the estate litigation courts. The party attempted to collaborate the outcome of estate proceedings in their favor.

Published on: March 5, 2012

Court Decides Will Contest Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The testator before his death had written a will. He freely gave all his estate to his living heirs except for his erring daughter. Upon his death, his living wife who then was suffering from a disease brought the will and testament to an estate administration court. Her cousin and an estate attorney represented decedent’s wife. The court appointed her guardians who have appeared for her in the probate proceedings. Estate lawyers and wife’s cousin filed a respectful consideration of election as executor to be named on her behalf.

Upon learning that a notice of election was filed for her mother’s favor, the erring daughter filed to the estate litigation courts her objections. She particularly stated that the document was malicious because testator did not give her any property. The document also mentioned of her evil past actions, the reason of testator’s disinheriting her. While testator was in existence, said daughter sold some properties owned by the family. She forged her parent’s signatures, and used falsified power of attorney. She also converted some of her father’s estate to her name. Testator and his wife acted steadily and filed criminal actions against the erring daughter that resulted in her plea of guilty to a class A demeanor.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that though she filed objections to the estate administration courts, she never appeared and proved her sworn statement true. She presented her dissentient before the trial held out of estate administration court without any judge present. Nor did the erring daughter produce any document to prove the court that as testator’s daughter she was entitled to the estate. It was found out that her fundamental intention was to delay the probate proceedings. She filed a manifestation to the probate court that she was suffering from a psychological condition that prevented her from appearing in court.