New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

Published on: February 9, 2012

Court Rules on Use of Emmy Trademark

by Stephen Bilkis

The very popular Emmy is a trademark shared National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Before, these two entities were on under Television Academy of Arts & Sciences, this was in 1946. In the 1950’s they separated because of differences. New York Probate Lawyers say that around the 1977, the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS) and Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (ATAS) entered in a settlement agreement to resolve differences in each group’s right with the use of the Emmy trademark and the related litigation.

NATAS got among other things the exclusive right to conduct one annual award and show per year for national daytime programming (TV shows from 2:00 am to 6:00 pm), national sports programming, national news and documentary programming. ATAS got the exclusive right for the award for night time TV shows (TV shows from 6:00 pm to 2:00 am). The agreement also provides that they will need each other’s consent before creating any new national awards, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. A Manhattan Probate Lawyer found out that the agreement is if the other party feels that the consent was reasonably withheld, then they can resort to an intercession.

NATAS announced that they would be starting to award new Emmys to recognize “new media”. The announcement was made November 2005. The “new media” included Broadband video programming broadcasted over the internet. ATAS was not asked for their consent before NATAS announced the new awards. They as well announced that they will be awarding Emmys in Drama, Comedy, Children’s and Variety for Daytime Broadband. Part of the revelation was a “My Space/ My Emmy” contest, which will be for advanced media awards like video games and other technologies. NATAS had denoted that it will be awarding all entertainment programming on broadband media regardless of the time it was distributed. The awards were scheduled to be given away in June.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Chardbourne and Parke, LLP represented the people who are involved in a Will left by Renate Hoffman, deceased. The Will was executed by Hoffman in 1988 and named the German National Church as primary beneficiary of his estate. According to reports, this 1988 Will was strongly objected and challenged by Robert Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. who were the primary executors of a prior Will of Hoffman which was executed in 1972. This became a long and extensive trial in which the two parties, Chardbourne and Park as well as Warshaw and Chase Manhattan entered in to an agreement in which the German Catholic Church received a considerable sum of $3 million dollars. In addition to this hefty settlement, the church will also receive a half-interest in a trust from the proceeds of the remainder of the estate.

According to further report given to New York Probate Lawyers, Chardbourne and Parke filed a case against Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank because of unpaid legal fees when the former performed its legal duties during the German Catholic Church settlement. Unfortunately their case did not progress in court. The court ruled in favour of the defendants, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan. In 2001 however, Chardbourne and Parke filed for an appeal of the previous decision by the court. Warshaw and Chase Manhattan argued that the 1988 Will was not the correct one to be administered and that Chardbourne has acted knowingly on their own. It was also noted by Warshaw and Manhattan that there was further wrong doing on the part of Chardbourne and Parke, LPP.

The trial continued on and arguments were presented regarding the 1988 Will’s validity which was also again brought up. This is due to the fact that Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank refused to grant Chardbourne and Parke the legal or attorney’s fees. Warshaw and Chase’s argument was that the 1988 Will was only illegal but that Chardbourne and Park was already aware of this but still continued on with its execution. But based on reports, when Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank entered into an agreement and settlement with Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the latter already impliedly recognized the validity of the Will and the contract agreement both parties entered into. Still according to the court, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan allowed a considerable amount of money be given to the primary beneficiary of the 1988 Will which was the German Catholic Church with a half interest on trust as part of the estate. This was considered by the court as more than enough evidence that both parties agreed on the validity of the Will in question. The court also noted that there is no legal cause to deny Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the legal fees for their services rendered.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

August 13, 1970, Julia Eckhart died leaving two children, Charlotte Eckart and Frank Darmody. In her will that was dated August 4, 1966, she left each of them the sum of $50 and the rest to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. The will was admitted to probate and daughter, Ms. Eckart and Mr. Darmody submitted intent to contest the will. This is because of the size of the estate distributed by the will. New York Probate Lawyers say that in the Estates, Power and Trusts Law, gifts to a charitable institution should not be more than half of the estate if contested by a descendant or parent. The law further states that the person can only contest if they are to receive a monetary benefit if the contest is successful as the beneficiary of the will.

Being the children of the deceased is not questionable. What needs to be decided on is if they have the right because they will receive a pecuniary benefit. The executor’s point of view was that the children did not have the right as the will expressed that Mrs. Eckhart, the deceased, did not want to give her children more than the $50, she provided for each of them. He relied on the case of Joseph Cairo as an example. The Cairo case, a Staten Island Probate Lawyer states, had the specific words that said that the deceased did not wish to give the grandson, Joseph Cairo, anything from the estate. The grandson was not going to benefit from a successful contest.

In this matter, the deceased placed her relatives in different levels as her children got $50 inheritance while the others did not. There was nothing that specifically or expressly stated she wished they do not receive anything more than the $50, she had appropriated in her will. The $50 in this case is insignificant. It does not show the intent of the testatrix if she wished to take away inheritance from her children. The law takes out intention with its provision. It keeps only what is stated in the will.

Published on: February 7, 2012

Can an Appeal that was Never Filed Serve as Notice of a Will Contest

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 28, 1975, a man died in West Monroe. He left a last will and testament dated November 27, 1972. The will was submitted to probate in November 1, 1977 and letters were issued to a family member as the executor of the estate and sole descendant. Prior to the settlement of the affairs, this family member died. This was November 5, 1981. In January 15, 1982, the nephew of the deceased executor petitioned the court for letters of administration. The court granted this petition in January 19, 1982.

In January 7, 1983, nephew asked the court to rule on whether the decedent exercised his personal right under the excessive gift to charity. By May 4, 1983, a hearing was held to present evidence.

The decedent, upon the death of his mother contacted a lawyer regarding some of the provisions in his mother’s will. The nephew also asked if these certain stipulations in his mother’s will can be broken. He expressed his discontent with his mother’s will especially in the paragraph that allocates any remaining estate to be given to Hospital North. Hospital North at the time of decedents death was non-existent. In a letter dated January 12, 1982 from an attorney for the Hospital North, it was said that the Hospital North was never created and will never be created.

Published on: February 7, 2012

Public Assisstance Recipients File Claim Against the State

by Stephen Bilkis

The public assistance recipients who had been classified as employable with limitations had a filed an instant law suit against the City administration and the State. The people were classified as such because of the medical problems that they have. Their allegation was that the City administration often puts them in jobs that are not compatible with their disabilities. The plaintiffs who have been assigned to the Work Experience Program (WEP) state that aside from the incompatible jobs, the State has failed to supervise the program under the Social Services law.

New York Probate Lawyers found out that the court has found that the plaintiffs had raised a serious fairness issue and could be entitled to a Writ of Mandamus that requires a government agency to do something that they should by law. It can also be a writ of prohibition, which will prohibit a government agency, even a judge, from doing something that they should not. Or it can also be a Mandamus Review, where a decision of a public agency is reversed.

According to the social services law, in exchange for welfare benefits, the aid recipients need to perform WEP assignments, unless the recipients are exempted due to physical or mental disabilities. The city’s medical contractor determines if they are E-I or employable, E-II or employable with limitations, E-III or temporarily disabled, or E-IV which is permanently disabled, according to a Manhattan Probate Lawyer said. People classified as E-II should still work but will be assigned jobs compatible with their disability.

Published on: February 6, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Laurel G. Ellis died in June 1994. She left a last will and testament dated May, 25 1990. This will contain conditions in the bequest that favored her daughter, Florence. In the will, it gave 50% of the remaining estate after taxes and fees to Mrs. Ellis daughter and the remainder is divided equally between her sons, John and Richard. One would think it is unfair for the mother to do this, but with their history, you would understand why.

The previous will had the children sharing the estate equally, but after Mrs. Ellis’ husband died the sons’ relationship with their mother got worse and with her daughter better. There was even a letter sent by John to her mother that accused Florence of scheming to distance Mrs. Ellis from her sons. This was in March 1980. He even went as far as demand to have the old will reinstated and that Mrs. Ellis should not help Florence financially unless there is proof that she needs it. He stated in his letter that if his demand is granted, then he will not publicize the issue. A New York Probate Lawyer said John threatened to file a court case if what he wants is not done. In an undated letter to his brother Richard, he said the “estate would be in court so long that Florence would never see any of the money.”

In May 1990, she executed the will submitted for probate. Aside from the provision she placed in favor of her daughter, she added that her will is based on the “loving care and attention” her daughter has showed her and her late husband, unlike the behavior their sons showed. She said the will is a product of a long and careful thought and was not because of undue influence from Florence. Furthermore, in June 1993, she approached a new lawyer to draft a new will for her so that she could continue to express her desire to give the majority of her estate to Florence. The information a New York Probate Lawyer gathered said she was afraid her sons will cause trouble for her daughter. This is when the terrorem clause was added wherein if any of the beneficiaries directly or indirectly contest the will or any of its conditions, their right to their share in the estate is revoked, and that share will be divided between the remaining parties who have not contested.

Published on: February 6, 2012

Court Rules on a Workers Compensation Claim in a Wrongful Death Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

In a work-related accident, the decedent suffered permanent substantial disability in October 1973. An employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier was instructed to pay disability benefits to him. The defendant had pre-existing diabetes so the carrier applied and was give reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law.

When the decedent died on January 7, 1982, his widow filed to claim death benefits because she alleged that the injury sustained in October 1973 was an underlying factor in her husband’s death. A New York Probate Lawyer said that in compliance with the Workers’ Compensation Law the carrier converted the claim and applied for reimbursement from the Fund. There was a hearing with before an Administrative Law Judge and the application of the wife for death benefits was granted. The carrier did not ask for a review of the Workers’ Compensation Board about the connection of the injury to the death.

There was a later hearing for the carrier’s application for reimbursement from the Fund. The fund asked the Administrative Law Judge not to make a ruling until they could get a review from the Workers’ Compensation Board if the wife’s claim was compensable. The request was denied and the request of the carrier for settlement was granted. The fund appealed to the Board stating the wife would have not been awarded benefits because the death was not related to the injury sustained in October 1973. The Board’s decision was that the fund lacked standing to raise the issue. A Queens Probate Lawyer got information that the fund appealed.

Published on: February 5, 2012

Court Rules on a Motion in Limine

by Stephen Bilkis

MBIA Insurance Corporation (MBIA) filed a motion in limine for the court to allow MBIA to use statistical sampling to be able to present evidence for fraud and breach of contract and also to prove damages against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp. and Countrywide Financial Corp. (collectively Countrywide). A motion in limine is a request for a judge to rule if evidence may or may not be introduced in a trial. This can be done before or during a trial. Countrywide opposed this motion. A New York Probate Lawyer said that this is usually done to make sure that a jury will not see a possibly damaging evidence.

On September 27, 2010, a hearing was held to examine the evidence. MBIA presented an expert witness in the person of statistician Charles D. Cowan, Ph.D. Dr. Cowan gave testimony as to his proposed method of sampling the fifteen residential mortgage-backed securitizations (RMBS), which is the issue. The court requested that the different groups submit additional arguments on October 13, 2010. The requested that these opinions be delivered by letter.

One of the motions of the defendant is that the petition was premature. A Long Island Probate Lawyers mentioned that the court in this case did not set time limits with the motions in limine. Although MBIA presented this very early in the trial, it is legal and timely. The defendants, Countrywide, as well contends that legal and factual issues prevent the decision regarding MBIAs appeal. Countrywide says that there are disputed issues that must be settled first before the use of sampling. They stated that with the granting of the motion of MBIA, the court would improperly resolve legal questions that have not yet been fully discussed by the parties in court.

Published on: February 5, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Bessie Schlanger filed an appeal with the Surrogate Court to require payment of a legacy. Ms. Schlanger was to receive 4% of the remaining estate after taxes and fees of Sarah Pasternack. She claims that if the part, which is $10,000, is not paid to her account most likely she will not be able to enjoy any of it. She is saying she is old and needs the legacy. A New York Probate Lawyer mentioned that Ms. Schlanger said the other beneficiaries have received their legacies.

The answer given by the executor of Ms. Pasternack’s estate is that Ms. Schlanger in not entitled to be paid because she violated the terrorem clause of the last will and testament. It stated in the sixth paragraph of the will that if any of the beneficiaries or people mentioned in her will contests or does an act to contest the will, they will forfeit their right the bequest. It further states that if they testify against the probate of the will, then they will lose their right to the legacy. Their part will be, in effect, put back to the remaining interest and shared by the other recipients.

In the response, it is alleged that Ms. Schlanger violated in two ways. She tried to have Ms. Pasternack declared incompetent when she was still alive. This was the first instance. The second instance is in the probate proceedings, where even if she did not appear to contest herself, she conspired with another to have the will disallowed. This, a Nassau County Probate Lawyer maintains, can be considered as a violation to the terrorem clause.

Published on: February 4, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

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 Probate 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.