New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

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: October 7, 2011

Estate Tax in DC

by Stephen Bilkis

Nobody enjoys paying taxes, but they are something that everyone will have to pay. There are plenty of different taxes, and all of them are disliked by everyone. It is the role of the financial officer to try and determine how these taxes will affect the budget of the state. In 2012 there is an estimated $322 million budget deficit. To counter this there are proposed budget cuts and tax hikes. The estate tax could help the state to become much more financially stable.

The revenue earned from state taxes is thought to be $35 million in 2011explains a New York City Estate Planning lawyer. The same estimated amount is predicted through years 2012 and 2014. However, whether these predictions are accurate or not will remain to be seen. The exact number of deaths will not be known, nr will their wealth and circumstances.

It might not be the nicest thing to think about, but if some of the wealthiest residents of the district were to die, then it would be beneficial for the budget.

Published on: October 5, 2011

Connecticut Probate Court System nears Surplus

by Stephen Bilkis

Just a year ago the Connecticut probate courts were near being bankrupt. However, after the courts have been restructured the system is much more effective explains a New York Estate Planning Lawyer. The states probate system has its roots in the colonial era, but after the number of courts being halved, it now works better.

The NY Estate Planning Lawyer attended the Connecticut Probate Assembly’s Annual Meeting. It was explained that the courts have managed to save $1.2 million. This is much better than when they were almost bankrupt.

The court expects to be able to generate a $2 to $3 million surplus at the end of the 2012 financial year.

Published on: October 2, 2011

Estate Planning in 2011

by Stephen Bilkis

At the end of 2010 congress revamped the estate tax and generation skipping tax legislation. This saw all of the different types of death related taxes being filed with the highest rate of 35%.

At the moment the exemption rates are very generous and this is thought to continue throughout 2012. However, in 2013 it’s likely that things will be changed. That’s why many New York Probate Lawyers are starting to tell their clients about the possibility of gifting now.

The portability of the gift tax exemption means that a married couple actually has double the amount of exemption. The $5 million lifetime gift tax exemption for individuals is $10 million for a married couple. In 2010 the gift exemption was only $1 million.

Published on: September 29, 2011

Woman’s Wrongful Death Suit Reinstated in California

by Stephen Bilkis

A California court has decided belief in a marriage can, in fact, make it legal when a man marries another woman before his divorce is final.

A state appeals court reinstated the lawsuit of a woman over the death of a man she may or may not have been married to for four years. In the eyes of the law, he was her husband, even though he married her while still legally married to another woman.

Similar suits have been rejected consistently for more than two decades, New York City Estate Planning Lawyers have discovered. Court after court rejected the suit until finally the Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose said because the plaintiff “believed in good faith” she was, in fact, legally married, she has marital rights, which includes the right to sue another party for wrongful death.

Published on: September 25, 2011

President Calls for Taxes on the Rich

by Stephen Bilkis

President Barack Obama has responded to calls from legislators to create a plan to reduce the deficit by proposing to limit the growth of Medicaid and Medicare while raising taxes on richest sector of the American populace.

Obama says his plan would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years. For every $3 federal spending is cut, $1 would be raised in new taxes. In Nassau and Suffolk Counties, seniors are watching carefully to see what happens.

“We have to live within our means, we have to reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt,” the president said in a speech at George Washington University. “And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, creates jobs and win the future.”

Published on: September 24, 2011

South Florida Woman’s Fight for Inheritance Ends Up in Bankruptcy Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The niece of a deceased ice cream chain owner has ended up in bankruptcy court, indicated a firm of New York Estate Planning Lawyers.

It is her assertion that she is the rightful heir and administrator of the ice cream fortune – not the foundation to which the money has gone. She already made several attempts in New York, before filing personal bankruptcy in Fort Lauderdale, saying she had $32 million in litigation claims as her assets.

There are some who say it was a good idea, legally, for her to file bankruptcy. It may have held back some orders from the New York judges who are still overseeing her conflict with the foundation. Unfortunately for the would-be heiress, it did not quite go that way.