Bronx

Published on: May 20, 2015

Court Hears Uncontested Administratrix’s Accounting Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

New York Probate Lawyer said in this uncontested administratrix’s accounting proceeding, a stipulation has been submitted to the court for its approval and incorporation into the provisions of an intermediate accounting decree.

The decedent died, testate, on the 17th day of March, 1980, survived by a spouse and an infant daughter, born of the marriage between himself and his former wife, who also survived him. Pursuant to the terms of his last will and testament, dated December 6, 1972, the decedent devised and bequeathed his real and personal property, together with the maximum amount allowable as a marital deduction under federal law, to his former spouse, and disposed of the rest, residue and remainder of his estate, in trust, for the benefit of his former spouse during her lifetime. Upon the death of his said spouse, the decedent directed that the principal of the trust estate continue to be held, in trust, for the benefit of his daughter, until she attained the age of 30, at which time, it was to be transferred and paid over to her, outright, if then living, or if not then living, to her then living issue, or if none, to a named charity. The decedent made no provision in the instrument for his second wife. As a consequence, his daughter became the sole beneficiary of his estate, by virtue of his divorce from his former spouse on October 19, 1979.

On the 8th day of July, 1980, the decedent’s former spouse, as guardian of her infant daughter’s property, filed a petition with the court requesting the probate of the decedent’s last will and testament, and the issuance to her of letters of administration. This application was unsuccessfully opposed by the decedent’s surviving spouse, whose objections to probate were dismissed in the context of a motion for summary judgment made by the guardian ad litem appointed to represent the interests of the infant in the proceeding. As a result thereof, letters of administration were issued by this court to the decedent’s former spouse on November 24, 1980, upon her posting of a bond in the sum of $20,000.00.

Published on: May 3, 2015

Petitioner Files an Application for an Order Extending the Statute of Limitations

by Stephen Bilkis

New York Probate Lawyers said this is an application for an Order extending the statute of limitations to allow the petitioner to commence an Article 78 proceeding against the State Tax Commission (Commission).

The Audit Division of the Commission, on December 20, 1979, issued a Notice of Determination and Demand for Payment of Sales and Use Taxes Due for the period June 1, 1976 through August 31, 1979. Petitioner filed a petition for revision of that determination and for refund of sales and use taxes under Articles 28 and 29 of the Tax Law. A hearing was held on November 21, 1985 at which petitioner appeared. A Decision was made on May 28, 1986 which modified the Determination, but left an amount due of $83,884.58.

A New York Estate Lawyer said by letter dated May 28, 1986, the Commission notified petitioner of the Decision and advised that petitioner had now exhausted his right of review at the administrative level. Pursuant to section(s) 1138 of the Tax Law, a proceeding in court to review an adverse decision by the State Tax Commission may be instituted only under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, and must be commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Albany County, within 4 months from the date of this notice.

Published on: April 30, 2015

Petitioner Seeks Clarity on Disposition of Property

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that in this proceeding the executors seek a determination as to the validity and effect of the disposition of property described in testator’s will and authorization to sell the real property of which testator died seized. Testator’s will dated April 18, 1956 was admitted to probate in this Court on August 7, 1959.

A New York Estate Lawyer said that after providing for the payment of administration expenses, testator in paragraphs ‘Second’ and ‘Third’ of his will devised a parcel of real property to his brother, H, and another parcel to his son-in-law, ‘absolutely’. In paragraphs ‘Fourth’ to ‘Tenth’ inclusive, testator bequeathed general legacies to two nieces and five churches. Paragraph ‘Eleventh’, which is the residuary clause, disposed of the remainder of testator’s estate, both real and personal, as follows: (a) sixty percent (60%) to his said brother, H, and (b) forth percent (40%) to his son-in-law, O (one of the petitioner herein); and in paragraph ‘Twelfth’ directed that in the event his brother H predeceased him, then ‘one-half of his remaining share be distributed amongst the above enumerated five Churches equally, and the balance to be given to my son-in-law, O.’

A Manhattan Probate Lawyer said that under paragraph ‘Thirteenth’ testator provided that all payments be made from ‘cash assets’ at the time of his death and in the event the cash was not sufficient, then ‘distribution of these cash bequests be made on a proportionate basis.’ The will in paragraph ‘Fourteenth’ further provided that the executors are ‘not to attempt to dispose of any of my realty until two (2) years after my death’ and thereafter the executors were to exercise ‘their discretion’ to sell or otherwise dispose of the real property. Testator also provided in paragraph ‘Fourteenth’ of the will that ‘If, further, there is not sufficient sums to make the payments as mentioned in paragraph ‘Twelfth’, then I direct that as soon as any sales of realty are made, that first the specific bequests be paid and thereafter distribution be made to my surviving distributees.’ H predeceased the testator leaving no descendants surviving.

Published on: March 27, 2015

Are Inter Vivos Dispositions to the Widow Properly Includible in Decedent’s Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

A Probate Lawyer said that, this is a proceeding by the executors pursuant to SCPA 1421 to determine the validity and effect of an election by the decedent’s surviving spouse. The decedent executed a will on February 25, 1965 which has been admitted to probate in this court. The decedent was unmarried at the time of execution. He married respondent, his surviving spouse, on October 10, 1967. Subsequent to this marriage decedent made certain Inter vivos dispositions to the surviving spouse. The respondent is the joint and surviving owner of the jointly owned property having a value of $71,444.68.

The issue presented is whether the Inter vivos dispositions to the widow are properly includible in the estate of the decedent for the purpose of computing the widow’s share and are the dispositions for the benefit of the widow to be offset against her share as computed. EPTL 5–1.1(c)(1) provides: ‘Where, after August thirty-first, nineteen hundred sixty-six, a testator executes a will disposing of his entire estate, and is survived by a spouse, a personal right of election is given to the surviving spouse.’ Clause (A) includes the testamentary dispositions enumerated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) in the computation of the elective share.

The cases have held that where a will is involved the surviving spouse has a right of election against testamentary substitutes pursuant to EPTL 5–1.1(c) provided: (1) the will was executed after August 31, 1966; (2) the transactions were effected during the marriage; and (3) the transactions were effected after August 31, 1966. All three conditions must be present. Unless present, the Inter vivos transaction is an ‘exempt’ transaction and not a testamentary substitute. There is no right to elect against exempt transactions. In the instant case two of the conditions have been satisfied but the will was executed prior to August 31, 1966.

Published on: March 18, 2015

Court Decides Testator’s Widow has Right to Take Interstate Share

by Stephen Bilkis

Probate Lawyers said this is an incident to the judicial settlement of their account the executors seek a determination with respect to the validity of the trust created by testator under paragraph ‘Second’ of the will and the effect of the widow’s notice of election thereon. Said paragraph is the residuary clause and the only dispository provision of the will.

The testator made and executed his will in the state of New York where he was domiciled in 1947. He died in 1954 in the state of Virginia, where he then resided with his wife and five children. At the time of his death testator was possessed of real and personal property situated in both states. Testator’s will was probated in this Court on July 28, 1954. Thereafter, the original will was transmitted to Virginia and also probated in that state on or about October 9, 1954.

A New York Estate Lawyer said in the probate proceedings had in Virginia, testator’s widow renounced the provisions made for her under the will and elected to take her intestate share. Under the laws of Virginia surviving spouse may elect to take against a will if it provides less than the intestate share of one-third unless such right to elect has been lawfully barred or relinquished (Code of Virginia, §§ 64-20, 64-27, 64-32).

Published on: March 14, 2015

Widow Makes Motion to Disqualify Attorneys

by Stephen Bilkis

The widow of the testator has made this motion to disqualify the attorneys for the executors and their counsel, to restrain them from participating in the affairs of the estate and from continuing to appear for the executors in matters affecting the estate, and to require said attorneys and their counsel to restore to the estate all sums of money they have received for legal services or otherwise.

New York Probate Lawyers said that testator’s will was duly admitted to probate and letters testamentary issued to his three children as the nominated executors therein. By the provisions of his will testator bequeathed $5,000 to his widow and provided other benefits for her, not necessary of enumeration, and bequeathed and devised the residue of his estate, in equal shares to his three children whom he named as executors. The widow filed a notice of election to take her intestate share in the estate as provided by Section 18 Decedent Estate Law, and instituted a proceeding to determine the validity of such election. The matter was settled by agreement wherein the widow was to receive 28 1/2% of the net estate with the balance being distributable to testator’s children in equal shares.

Thereafter the widow instituted a proceeding to compel the executors to account and on their failure to file the account as directed made a motion to punish from for contempt. The account was filed and objections thereto were filed by the widow and examinations of the executors were allowed with reference to such account. In addition the widow sought to compel the executors to account in the estate of testator’s first wife under the terms of whose will testator was the income beneficiary of a trust of the residuary estate with the remainder of such trust bequeathed and devised to testator’s and his first wife’s three children, the executors of testator’s estate.

Published on: March 6, 2015

Brothers Enter into Property Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

A Probate Lawyer said in an action for partition of real property, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 5, 1983, as, after a nonjury trial, declared that defendant was the owner in fee simple of the subject premises located at 16th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties are brother and sister. Upon the death of their father on February 16, 1977, and the admission of his will to probate, plaintiff and defendant and their brother, L, each inherited an undivided one-third interest in three parcels of real property. These consisted of a two-family house on 66th Street in Brooklyn which was plaintiff’s residence; a three-family house on 16th Avenue in Brooklyn where defendant had resided for more than 20 years; and a parcel of land in Shirley, New York.

A New York Estate Lawyer said the father also left money in bank accounts in trust for defendant and for her son, V, and it appears that there was a falling-out between defendant and her brothers when defendant failed to share that money with them. Nevertheless, plaintiff and defendant continued to have conversations concerning the transfer to each other of their interests in the two Brooklyn properties.

Published on: February 22, 2015

Widow Questions Will Construction

by Stephen Bilkis

In rendering her account for judicial settlement, the executrix-widow has presented a number of questions for adjudication, including construction of the will. Objections were filed by the decedent’s daughter (a devisee and residuary legatee), and a report was filed by the guardian ad litem appointed to represent the daughter’s two children who are trust beneficiaries.

A pretrial conference was held resulting in a stipulation entered on the record February 4, 1970 by which most of the objections were disposed of or withdrawn, and certain agreements were made subject to the approval of the court which will now consider all questions.

A Probate Lawyer said that the testator died on October 24, 1968 after having made a will and codicil which were admitted to probate on November 27, 1968. The will was made on November 19, 1964 while the testator was married to one MD, now deceased. Subsequent to her death he married petitioner ED and made a codicil on September 4, 1968. The codicil contained certain specific bequests and a devise, modified certain provisions in the will and in all other respects confirmed and ratified the same.

Published on: February 4, 2015

Court Determines the Validity of a Notice of Election

by Stephen Bilkis

Probate Lawyers show that the instant proceeding was commenced by the executors pursuant to section 145-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act to determine the validity and effect of the widow’s notice of election served and filed pursuant to section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law. However, after commencement of the proceeding, the widow withdrew said issue, and instead submitted for the Court’s determination on a basis of conceded facts the issue raised in her counterclaim for $10,000 with interest from date of decedent’s death. Widow, in her counterclaim alleges that she and decedent entered into a written agreement wherein inter alia decedent agreed to leave her a legacy of $10,000; that he failed to provide for her in his will which was admitted to probate; that the estate is sufficient for all purposes; that she duly performed all the terms, conditions and covenants on her part to be performed; that payment of said amount has been refused although duly demanded; and the widow therefore prays for an award in said amount. The other parties contend that said agreement between decedent and the said widow is unenforceable.

Under the agreement, the widow, under her maiden name renounced any and all right, title, interest in any property that decedent was then seized of or might thereafter acquire, as well as to the estate of decedent in the event that he predeceased her. Decedent on his part ‘promises and agrees to make a provision in his Last Will and Testament whereby the first party shall receive a bequest in the sum of $10,000.’ This is followed by the final paragraph stating: ‘The reason, purpose and object of this agreement is that the parties thereto intend to marry and become husband and wife, and each having children by a prior marriage, and each being desirous that their children shall inherit there respective property and estate, have entered into mutual or like agreements for the purpose of assuring each to the other, that they will not claim any interest in the estate of the one dying first, except as aforesaid.’

A New York Estate Lawyer said it would appear that the agreement contemplated a marriage in future which, though prohibited in this State by reason of the fact that decedent was widow’s uncle, could have been entered into validly in some other jurisdiction in which event the marriage would be entitled to recognition as valid in this State. The relationship of decedent and the widow was not meretricious. On March 23, 1945 decedent, a widower 72 years old, and the wife, a widow 57 years old, had obtained a marriage license in Brooklyn and entered into a religious marriage ceremony. They lived together for more than 15 years as husband and wife. Their marriage apparently was entered into in good faith. It was solemnized by a Rabbi who, in a statement, certified that he united the parties in marriage on March 23, 1945, and that the said widow was decedent’s legal wife. The agreement by decedent to provide a legacy for the widow being in writing satisfies the Statute of Frauds strongly relied upon by the other parties is not in point. It deals with an ante-nuptial contract which contemplated a marriage that would be invalid because of a living spouse, whereas in the instant case there was no impediment to the marriage in a jurisdiction where they could legally marry.

Published on: January 30, 2015

Court Decides Settles Plaintiff’s Final Accounting

by Stephen Bilkis

A Probate Lawyer said that incidental to this proceeding to judicially settle decedent’s final account, covering the period from December 1, 1984 to July 31, 1999, is a plea for construction of paragraphs Fifth and Sixth of his will. National Bank (petitioner), the successor executor and trustee under the will, maintains that construction is necessary before final distribution can be made. Petitioner, the stakeholder of testamentary trusts created under paragraphs Fifth and Sixth, takes no position with respect to the ultimate remaindermen of the trusts.

Mr. FC (hereafter decedent) died testate on January 18, 1944. His last will and testament of February 27, 1942 was admitted to probate by this court on February 10, 1944. Decedent was survived by a daughter, M, and a son, L, his distributees. Decedent’s wife predeceased him in 1942.

An Estate Lawyer said after directing the payment of debts and expenses and leaving personal effects, real property and the sum of $1,000 to M, decedent’s will directed that the residue be divided into three equal shares. From these shares, the will established two testamentary trusts: one funded with two thirds of the residuary estate (the article Fifth Trust) and one funded with the remaining one third of the residuary estate (the article Sixth Trust).