New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

Published on: February 3, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

In the mater of the last will and testament of Clara Louise Bonesteel, a petition was filed with the Appellate Court with in relation to the decision made in a jury trial. The last will and testament was disputed as not being a valid will for the decedent. The jury found that the last will and testament is legitimate and said that it can be entered into probate.

The case that is filed with the court is with regard to the challengers of the will to be able to get a copy of the stenographic minutes of the trial at the expense of the estate. The law states that a copy of the stenographer’s minutes may be supplied to the contestant and charged to the expense of the estate if they can determine that the contest was made in good faith. It does not matter if the contest was successful or unsuccessful as long as it was made in good faith. In the case of Byron’s will, the court decided that good faith is not to be established before the contest as it will promote prolonged trials because the person contesting the will is assured that the costs will be shouldered by the decedent’s estate. To determine good faith after the trial is a way to ensure that the contest is already in good faith because one will bear the cost otherwise.

In law, there is also a rule of stare decisis. This states that any court lower than the Appellate Court should follow the decision made already by the Appellate Court with regard to the same issues. This applies to other judges even if not from a lower court, but of course not a higher one. In the case regarding Harned’s will, the Surrogate Wingate of Kings County followed the decision of the Appellate Division of the First Department, there was no differing decision from his own Appellate Division in his department. A New York Probate Lawyer mentioned that the decisions of other Special Terms are not controlling. The judge at special term has the duty to follow a decision made by the Appellate Court of another division pending the decision of his own Appellate Division of the Court of Appeals offers a different ruling.

Published on: February 3, 2012

Court Rules on a Case Against the Government

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiffs filed a motion against New York State Department of Taxation and Finance for their Statewide Offset Program. A New York Probate Lawyer says that the plaintiffs are taxpayers who are saying that in allowing the offsets, the defendants have violated their rights to notice under the due process and their right to oppose the debts where they offset the refunds. They allege that the program allows the offsetting of their income tax refund to any debt owed by the taxpayer to the New York State Office of Temporary Disability Assistance (OTDA). The plaintiffs are asking for relief and a class certification.

The Court in determining the granting of the motion of the plaintiff’s for class certification determined that issues and facts that are common to the wished-for class outweighs the concerns that are specific to the individual class members. Queens Probate Lawyers mentioned that the court found the question of the violation of OTDA to the due-process clauses of the Constitutions of the United States and New York by certifying debts to DTF without giving plaintiffs’ adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to contest the underlying debts is common to all the members of the proposed class.

The general position of the defendant is that the plaintiffs would not be entitled to recover any damages. They would not be compensated for the government’s violation of their due-process rights if the violation is not the reason for the plaintiff’s losses. The plaintiffs were not able to show evidence of the loss that they are claiming to have incurred because of not having the opportunity t contest the main debt. The court agrees with the defendant’s position on the compensation not being granted if the loss is not a direct result of the violation. The plaintiffs though, ask for the offsets plus interest. A Nassau County Estate Lawyer stated that the opposition indicates that if the opportunity to contest the debt is granted, each plaintiff will have to prove his or her individual case.

Published on: February 2, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

The case regarding Genevieve Tisdale’s estate is about getting a jury trial in connection to the revocable trust executed by her at the same time with her last will and testament. Ms. Tisdale died on October 6, 1995. It is said that her will dated December 15, 1994 was executed with about $2.1 million revocable trust. The estate in the will was under $400,000. The trust fund is the one to be used for estate taxes and other expenses. The estate is divided to different beneficiaries, including charities. The bequest ranged from $10,000 to $200,000. There was an amendment made to the cash gifts made on July 31, 1995.

Michael L. McDermott was the draftsman of both the will and the trust. He is also named as the guardian of the net estate except the tangibles. He is to allocate the state according to the will. If the trust fails, the will also is refers to its terms. Mr. McDermott, a New York Probate Lawyer mentioned, is an Illinois lawyer not admitted in New York. Three months before the testatrix signed the will was the first time that they had met. This issue was already submitted to court.

Five of the family beneficiaries, which are all nieces and nephews, petitioned the court to withhold the trust in both proceedings after the will enter probate. They also asked that in both cases, there be a jury trial on their protest about the execution, capacity, undue influence and fraud. The recipients particularly object to, allegedly, the charitable beneficiaries reflecting Mr. McDermott’s choices and not the decedent’s. They cited the provision for twenty-five percent of the trust remainder is distributable to Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama, which is Mr. McDermott’s alma mater. Twenty-five percent of the trust remainder is given to the Evans Scholars Foundation where Mr. McDermott is a trustee. Twenty-five percent of the trust remainder is gifted to National Louis University located in the Chicago suburb where Mr. McDermott lives. Lastly, $250,000 is distributable to Misericordia Home in Chicago. They also claim that Ms. Tisdale is your typical New Yorker, who has lived in the Upper East side of Manhattan most of her adult life.

Published on: February 2, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

In the matter of the will of Mary Cairo’s estate, the grandson, Joseph L. Cairo, filed a contest claiming that the more than one-half of the remaining estate was assigned to charity. The litigation regarding this, the court found that the grandson was not eligible for this case as he is not to benefit from a successful contest. A New York Probate Lawyer got the information that Mr. Cairo was already been provided for by Ms. Cairo in her lifetime. His ineligibility was determined by the words in the will that said that she makes no bequest to her grandson for good and sufficient reasons.

Mr. Cairo, the grandson, after the decision appealed that the counsel fees and other fees be taken from the estate. The reason he presented was that in the process of his contest, the construction of the will was also done. Two of the charitable beneficiaries and the Attorney General countered this.

In an interpretation of the will, the court can allocate an amount that they deem reasonable for counsel fees and other expenses that had been incurred in the process. The Attorney General and the charitable beneficiaries argued that what happened was not a construction of the will and did not benefit the State. They made a case as well about the request not specifically stating that it is to understand the will. The question now that the court needs to determine is if the litigation involved a construction of the will according to a NYC Probate Lawyer.

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: 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: 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 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.