New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

Published on: January 22, 2025

Whether the Surrogate’s Court has the authority to modify the 100% allocation ordered by Supreme Court. Matter of Hoyte, 2021 NY Slip Op 21090

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Hoyte, 2021 NY Slip Op 21090 involves the distribution of settlement proceeds following an untimely death, raising questions of jurisdiction and allocation between personal injury and wrongful death claims. The Petitioner, Clathina McMillan-Hoyte, seeks approval for the distribution, while the Albany County Department of Social Services (DSS) objects, asserting a Medicaid lien on the personal injury portion.

In New York, the allocation between personal injury and wrongful death claims involves determining how to distribute settlement proceeds. Recoveries designated for wrongful death, governed by EPTL 5-4.4, are distributed among the decedent’s distributees according to their pecuniary injuries. This process aims to prevent creditors from accessing funds allocated to wrongful death, emphasizing the distinct nature of these claims. Such allocations are subject to careful legal scrutiny, providing a framework for just and equitable distribution in cases involving personal injury and wrongful death.

Background Facts

Published on: January 3, 2024

Court refused to rule on whether future legal action would trigger an in terrorem clause. Matter of Follman 2023 NY Slip Op 23292

by Stephen Bilkis

An in terrorem clause, commonly found in wills and trusts, is a legal provision designed to deter beneficiaries from challenging the validity of the document or taking legal action against the estate. Also known as a no-contest clause, it threatens forfeiture of inheritances if a legal challenge is initiated. The clause aims to promote the testator’s intent, discourage unnecessary litigation, and maintain the integrity of the estate plan. While in terrorem clauses in New York wills and trusts are permitted, they are very narrowly construed.

Matter of Follman 2023 NY Slip Op 23292 involves a request for the construction of articles within three separate inter vivos trusts established by the decedent and his wife, Esther Follman. The petitioner, Ahron N. Follman, seeks a ruling that filing a petition for information and/or accountings will not trigger the in terrorem clauses in these trusts. Respondent Avraham Follman opposes the motion, asserting that the in terrorem clauses have already been triggered. This blog explores the background facts, the legal issue at hand, the court’s holding, and provides a comprehensive discussion of the case.

Background Facts

Published on: January 2, 2024

Surrogate’s Court refused to restrain a foreign proceeding, allowing probate to proceed in Israel. Matter of Cohen 2004 NY Slip Op 24426

by Stephen Bilkis

When attempting to probate a will in New York that originated in another country, several issues may arise. The court must navigate differences in legal systems, questioning the validity of the foreign will under New York law. Considerations include the deceased person’s connection to New York, the residence of beneficiaries, and the executor’s location. The court may assess if the decedent directed probate in New York, weighing the convenience of parties involved. Potential conflicts arise, as the court must balance New York’s interest with the foreign jurisdiction’s primary role in determining the will’s validity. These complexities highlight the importance of careful legal evaluation and the potential need for the court to exercise discretion in deciding whether to accept jurisdiction over the foreign will.

Matter of Cohen 2004 NY Slip Op 24426 involves a dispute among the surviving children of Anna Cohen, who passed away in 1991. The conflict centers on the probate of Anna Cohen’s will in Israel, with Esther Green seeking to challenge the letters of administration granted to her sister, Deb Ireland, in the United States.

Background Facts

Published on: December 27, 2023

Surrogate’s Court considered whether to enforce a settlement agreement made through alternative dispute resolution.Matter of Eckert 2022 NY Slip Op 50095(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

When someone dies intestate in New York, it means they passed away without a valid will. In this situation, the New York’s laws step in to determine how the deceased person’s estate will be distributed. If the decedent has both a surviving spouse and a child, New York’s intestate succession laws come into play.

The surviving spouse receives the first $50,000 of the estate plus half of the remaining balance. The child, or children, inherit the other half of the remaining balance. This legal framework is designed to ensure that the surviving spouse is provided for, but it also recognizes the rights of the decedent’s children to a share of the estate.

Matter of Eckert, 2022 NY Slip Op 50095(U) revolves around the intestate estate of James Eckert, who passed away in 2018, sparking a legal dispute between his surviving child, Michelle Eckert, and his spouse, Tara Connelly. The conflict arose when Michelle Eckert contested the marriage’s validity and sought administration of the estate. Despite an initial agreement reached during an ADR session, a subsequent breakdown in negotiations led to Michelle Eckert filing a motion to enforce the settlement.

Published on: December 26, 2023

Court denied the requested transfer of the trusts’ situs to Delaware. Matter of Bush 2003 NY Slip Op 23933

by Stephen Bilkis

This legal case involves JPMorgan Chase Bank’s petition to resign as a trustee for trusts created by Harriet F. Bush and Donald F. Bush. The court has already granted their request for resignation and appointed J.P. Morgan Trust Company of Delaware as the successor trustee. The remaining issue is the transfer of the trusts’ situs to Delaware to avoid New York State fiduciary income tax. All interested parties have consented to the requested relief.

Background Facts

JPMorgan Chase Bank, as trustee for trusts created by Harriet F. Bush and Donald F. Bush, seeks court approval to transfer the situs of the trusts to Delaware. The primary motive is to avoid New York State fiduciary income tax. The court had previously granted the resignation of JPMorgan Chase Bank as trustee and appointed J.P. Morgan Trust Company of Delaware as the successor trustee.

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.