New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

Published on: January 30, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

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. From what a New York Probate Lawyer got from their claim, they are saying that the last three pages of the will which had the signature were authentic, and the first four pages were substituted.

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 a power 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. Staten Island Probate Lawyers 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.

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

Arthur D. Norcross, executed a will that gives all his residuary estate to charity

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 to contest the will. 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. 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. A New York Probate Lawyer also states that the law intends to alienate charities but to protect family members if they decide to raise this statute.

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.

Published on: January 26, 2012

After Nicholas’ son died in March 31, 1971, the court-appointed Mr. McQuade

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 failed to contest the son’s will 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. 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 26, 2012

Estate of Julia Eckart

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case regarding the Estate of Julia Eckart and the claims of her children regarding each of their shares in the inheritance. According to reports given to a New York Probate Lawyer, the children of the deceased filed a case against the last will and testament of their mother because of the insufficiency of their inherited amount against that of which will go to other people, entities and charities.

Unbelievably, according to a Manhattan Probate Lawyer, Julia Eckart left each of her children the amount of $50 each. According to her will, she also left no other cash or property to the rest of her surviving relatives. That is why the surviving children, Charlotte Anna Eckart, Frank Darmody and Frank Darmody filed a case in court that says that their mother made an excessive contribution to charity and that they were left with nothing except for the $50 each that were provided to them by her last will and testament. The rest of Julia Eckart’s estate, including her real and personal property have been assigned to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, which is a non-profit corporation in Brooklyn, New York.

Reports that reached the desk of a Nassau County Probate Lawyer said the court thoroughly examined the case according to the petition filed by the children. There was also a similar case before when a grandson was expressly disinherited on the will that was left by his grandfather. This was the Cairo case which was a long and hardly fought battle in court which now became a source of other similar cases as well. But according to the court, there should be two elements present in a case before it can be ruled as excessive charity. First, there should really be the intension to give too much of her estate to charity. Second, there is the intention to disinherit immediate family members like the spouse or children by the one executing the last will and testament.

Published on: January 25, 2012

Charles J. Brower died on April 15

by Stephen Bilkis

Charles J. Brower died on April 15, 1954 leaving a last will and testament that were admitted to probate on April 30 of the same year. He was survived by his wife Helen Brower and his brother Willard T. Brower. After about 11 and 1/2 years, on October 18, 1965. Mrs. Bower filed an appeal under the Decedent Estate Law that contested the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraph of the will. Her claim was that in gives more than 50% of the testator’s estate to a religious association.

A New York Probate Lawyer says that Section 17 of the Decedent Estate Law says ‘No person shall, devise or bequeath more than one-half part of his or her estate, after the payment of his or her debts, and such devise or bequest shall be valid to the extent of one-half, and no more. The validity of a devise or bequest for more than such one-half may be contested only by a surviving husband, wife, child, descendant or parent…’

Mr. Bower had made his wife, his brother and his friend and attorney David G. McCullough executors of his estate. He gave to his wife $2,500 plus any earnings of the residue remainder of his estate, and she can get part of the principal up to $500 in a calendar year in case of illness. Upon his wife’s death or if his wife precedes him, his brother gets $1,000. $1,000 to be given to New Hackensack Dutch Reformed Church in memory of my father, William Henry Brower and my mother, Jane Augusta Brower. To Reformed Dutch Church, he bequests $1,000 in memory of his wife. The rest of the residuary estate is given to New Hackensack Dutch Reformed Church.