New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

Published on: December 20, 2023

Should the court compel turnover of corporate minutes relevant to an estate? Matter of Baugher 2014 NY Slip Op 51090(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In estate proceedings, the involvement of corporate holdings, like a company owned by the deceased, can significantly affect the distribution of assets. Imagine someone owned a business worth millions when they passed away. Now, their estate has to be sorted out. The company’s value and income become part of the estate’s total worth. If there are specific legal matters or disputes, details about the company, its finances, and decisions made in board meetings may become crucial.

In the case of Phebe Baugher, her estate involved about $22 million linked to W.S. Wilson Corporation. So, understanding how the company operated, especially after Phebe’s death, becomes vital. Jonathan Kirk Baugher, managing the estate’s initial steps, wanted more information about what happened in meetings after 2008, likely to ensure everything was handled correctly. This shows how the corporate side of things can be tightly connected to the overall estate proceedings. The court’s decision on accessing specific corporate records can significantly impact how the estate is managed and how assets are eventually distributed among heirs.

Background Facts

Published on: December 18, 2023

Google is obligated to disclose contacts and calendar information under EPTL 13-A-3.2. Matter of Serrano 2017 NY Slip Op 27200

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York small estate proceeding is a simplified legal process for handling the assets of a deceased person when their estate is relatively small. It streamlines the probate or administration process, making it quicker and less complex. Typically, it’s available when the total value of the estate is below a certain threshold. This procedure helps heirs and beneficiaries access the deceased person’s assets more efficiently, minimizing the legal requirements and costs associated with a standard probate or administration process for larger estates.

In this small estate proceeding, the petitioner seeks access to his deceased spouse’s Google email, contacts, and calendar information under Article 13 of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA). The request aims to inform friends of the passing and address any pending matters. However, Google insists on a court order ensuring compliance with privacy laws.

Background Facts

Published on: December 13, 2023

The court considered whether the renunciation of an interest in an estate was effective. Matter of Fakhra 2023 NY Slip Op 23201

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Fakhra, 2023 NY Slip Op 23201 involves a dispute within a small estate proceeding following the intestate death of the decedent in May 2020. The two adult children, Sara Nabil Fakhra (Petitioner) and Aous Fakhra (Respondent), were appointed Co-Administrators of the estate. The conflict arises from Aous Fakhra’s renunciation of his interest in the estate and a subsequent disagreement regarding the effectiveness of the renunciation.

In New York, a will renunciation occurs when an individual, typically an heir or a beneficiary named in a will, formally declines or renounces their right to inherit from the deceased person’s estate. This legal process is governed by the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) § 2-1.11. When someone chooses to renunciate, they are essentially saying, “I don’t want to inherit what the deceased person left for me in their will.”

Renunciation is often done for various reasons, such as personal financial planning, avoiding tax implications, or addressing family dynamics. It’s a strategic decision that involves a formal written statement, signed and acknowledged by the person renouncing, stating their intention to reject the inheritance. This statement needs to be filed with the court within nine months after the effective date of the disposition, as specified by the EPTL.

Published on: December 11, 2023

Department of Social Services’ potential standing as an interested party in wrongful death compromise proceedings. Matter of Maier, 178 Misc. 2d 1061 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1998)

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Maier, 178 Misc. 2d 1061 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1998) is about a wrongful death compromise proceeding and sheds light on the nuanced intersection of personal injury law, estate distribution, and the role of social services.

Wrongful death actions arise when an individual’s death is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of another party. For example, if someone is killed in car accident because another driver rain through a red light, a wrongful action could be brought against the negligent driver. Or, as in Matter of Maier, a death due to medical malpractice. Typically, these actions are initiated by the decedent’s personal representative or the estate on behalf of surviving family members who have experienced damages due to the death.

A distinctive aspect of a wrongful death compromise lies in the necessity to determine not only the amount of money to be awarded to the plaintiff (if any) but also how these funds are to be allocated. In a wrongful death compromise, the court must ascertain the monetary awards attributed to wrongful death versus personal injury. Damages attributable to wrongful death are granted exclusively to the decedent’s distributees, recognizing their compensation for the loss incurred due to their dependence on the deceased individual. Conversely, damages attributed to personal injury and pain and suffering are allocated through the estate. Subsequently, these funds are distributed in accordance with the terms specified in the decedent’s will or based on the laws of intestate succession.

Published on: December 6, 2023

Court rejects children’s allegations of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity. In re Burrows, No. 2022-01936 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 18, 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

Families often find themselves entangled in disputes over wills, particularly when claims of lacking testamentary capacity and undue influence arise. Such disagreements frequently arise due to differing interpretations of the deceased’s intentions or changes in familial dynamics. Courts, cognizant of the gravity of these allegations, meticulously assess each claim. To substantiate assertions of testamentary incapacity or undue influence, the court demands compelling evidence. The case of Burrows v. Burrows is an example of a situation where were such claims.

Background Facts

The case involved the contested estate of a deceased individual, referred to as the “decedent.” Marcia Burrows, as guardian of Ava Burrows and Audrey Burrows (the children), objected to the probate of the decedent’s will and sought to set aside the accompanying revocable trust, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Court granted the petitioners’ motion for summary judgment, admitting the will to probate. The court considered witness testimonies, including the estate attorney and accountant, establishing the decedent’s lucidity during the will’s execution. It found the respondent’s claims lacked specificity and were speculative, leading to the dismissal of objections related to testamentary capacity and undue influence. Marcia Burrows appealed.

Published on: December 4, 2023

Court found that testator was of sound mind when he executed his will. In Matter of the Estate of Scher, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51819 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2008)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, being of “sound mind” to execute a will means that the testator must possess testamentary capacity. See EPTL § 3-1.1. This entails understanding the nature and consequences of making a will, knowing the extent of one’s property, and recognizing the natural beneficiaries. While a presumption of having a sound mind exists, a testator’s mental capacity can be challenged as it was in In Matter of the Estate of Scher, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51819 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2008). It’s important to note that common conditions associated with aging or mental health issues may not automatically invalidate a will, and the burden of proof rests on the party contesting testamentary capacity.

The probate proceeding involving the estate of Harold Scher, who passed away on February 11, 2006, has unfolded with a myriad of legal complexities and familial tensions. The surviving spouse, Leah Scher objects to probate, and the decedent’s sons from a previous marriage, Mark Scher and David Scher and the proponents of he will. Objectant seeks to challenge the probate of Harold Scher’s will dated July 12, 2005, citing reasons such as lack of due execution, lack of testamentary capacity, fraud, and undue influence. In response, Proponents have filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, aiming to dismiss Objectant’s objections and secure the probate of the contested will.

Background Facts

Published on: November 20, 2023

Surrogate’s Court considered whether it had the authority to probate a Florida-made where there was estate property in Queens. Matter of Steiner 2023 NY Slip Op 51224(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

When someone who lived elsewhere passes away but owns property in New York, a probate proceeding can be initiated in the Surrogate’s Court in the county where the property is located. SCPA § 206 [1], which grants the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction over the estate of a non-domiciliary decedent who leaves property in the state. The statute ensures that the legal process unfolds in the county where the non-domiciliary decedent left property, streamlining the handling of assets and the distribution of the estate according to applicable laws.

In Matter of Steiner, 2023 NY Slip Op 51224(U), the decedent lived in Florida at the time of their death, but also had property in New York.

Background Facts

Published on: November 15, 2023

Appellate Division considered whether a objectant had standing to challenge the validity of a will. In Matter of Mancuso, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 52151 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2006)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, having standing to contest a will means having a direct and adverse interest in the probate proceedings. To challenge a will, an individual must demonstrate a pecuniary or financial stake in the estate that would be adversely affected by the will’s admission to probate. Simply being an heir or beneficiary does not automatically grant standing; the potential contestant must show that their rights or inheritance would be directly impacted by the probate of the contested will. The concept of standing ensures that only those with a genuine interest in the outcome can participate in will contests.

In Matter of Mancuso, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 52151 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2006), the dispute revolved around the denial of probate for Faye Mancuso’s 2000 will and the subsequent objections filed by Michael Pizzi, the will’s proponent, against the probate of an earlier will from 1987.

Background Facts

Published on: November 15, 2023

Court considered whether ancillary letters of administration should be issued. Matter of Dillon 2017 NY Slip Op 27388

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Dillon, 2017 NY Slip Op 27388 involves the estate of Terry J. Dillon, who died intestate in Maryland in 2016. A Small Estate Petition was filed in Maryland, where the decedent’s son, Jason M. Dillon, was appointed as the personal representative. Subsequently, Jason filed a petition in New York for ancillary letters of administration due to the decedent’s real estate holdings in the state.

Ancillary administration in New York refers to the legal process when someone passes away with assets in New York but is not a resident of New York. According to SCPA §1601, this process allows the executor, who manages the primary estate in the decedent’s domicile, to obtain additional authority to handle assets in New York. It ensures a proper and coordinated settlement of the deceased person’s affairs, even if their primary estate proceedings occur in a different jurisdiction. Ancillary administration follows the statutes outlined in SCPA §1309 and SCPA §206, ensuring compliance with New York estate laws.

Background Facts

Published on: November 13, 2023

Legal fees related to managing an estate that included a wrongful death settlement. Matter of Bender 2015 NY Slip Op 51929(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the intricate landscape of estate administration, the case of Douglas A. Bender’s intestate demise brings to light the complexities surrounding wrongful death claims and the allocation of settlement proceeds. This blog delves into the details of the case, exploring the legal intricacies, orders of the court, and the pivotal role of attorneys in navigating this challenging terrain.

Background Facts

In 2011, Douglas A. Bender passed away without leaving a will, leaving his spouse, Bonnie Bender, and four children as surviving family members. To manage the affairs of the estate, Limited Letters of Administration were granted to Bonnie on June 25, 2012. The only asset of the estate was a wrongful death claim initiated by Douglas and Bonnie due to asbestos exposure.