Brooklyn

Published on: June 28, 2013

Court Decides Will Contest Involving Minor Children

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that on 11 April 2007, the decedent died leaving a will dated 7 August 1997. She was survived by her two sons, A and B, and a granddaughter, CC, issue of a predeceased daughter, C.

Under the decedent’s will, her estate was to be divided equally between her two sons, and the issue of her predeceased daughter. It was provided in the will that, where any part of the estate vests in a minor, the executor named is authorized and empowered in his absolute discretion, to hold the property so vested in such minor and to invest and reinvest the same, collect the income therefrom, and during the minority of such minor, to apply so much of the net income therefrom or of the principal thereof for the care, support, maintenance or education of such minor as the executor deems it necessary and to accumulate any such income not so paid, if any, and to invest and reinvest same until said minor shall attain the age of 21 years, at which time the accumulated income and unexpended principal shall be paid over to him; the authority conferred upon the executor must be construed as a power only and cannot operate to suspend or prevent absolute vesting of any property in such minor; with respect to any such property which shall vest in absolute ownership in a minor or minors but which shall be held by the executor as authorized, the executor is entitled to such commissions at the rates and manner payable to a testamentary trustee with the same power and authority. The decedent nominated her three children as co-executors and directed that they serve without bond. The estate was valued at approximately $345,000.

Consequently, a probate proceeding was instituted. At that time, CC was a minor and a guardian ad litem was appointed to represent her. The guardian ad litem had no objections to the will being admitted to probate. However, the guardian ad litem recommended that the infant’s share of the estate be placed in trust with the Public Administrator to act as Trustee.

Published on: December 11, 2012

Court Discusses Public Policies Regarding Arbitration

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

A and B are husband and wife. They are shareholders in a radiology practice together with doctor-one and doctor-two. In 2004, they entered into an agreement where disputes arising therefrom are subject to arbitration. On 16 March 2007, B died leaving a will dated 12 March 2007. On 24 May 2007, B’s will was admitted to probate, a will contest proceeding, and letters testamentary issued to C. On 22 January 2008, B’s husband, A, died leaving a will dated 12 March 2007. On 28 February 2008, A’s will was admitted to probate and letters testamentary also issued to C as executor of A’s estate. A and B were survived by three children, X, Y and Z. A and B were shareholders in a radiology practice together with doctor-one and doctor-two. Thus, petitioner C, in his capacity as executor of each estate, commenced a separate discovery proceeding against the radiology practice and doctor-one seeking the recovery of retirement benefits which allegedly are being improperly denied to A and B’s estate by the said radiology practice at doctor-one’s direction; petitioner also asks the court to stay the arbitration proceedings instituted by doctor-one against X and another entity. A New York Probate Lawyer said the doctor-one now moves for an order dismissing the petitions in their entirety, or, in the alternative, either staying the discovery proceedings until after final resolution of the ongoing arbitration proceedings, or transferring the petitions to the Supreme Court in New York County.

The Ruling of the Court:

Published on: September 23, 2011

Seeking an estate planning lawyer’s advice is essential

by Stephen Bilkis

Many people tend to overlook the likelihood of being hit with an estate tax because they aren’t considered “rich.” But according to NY Estate Lawyers many upper middle-class citizens could be hit with a tax rate as high as 35%.

Currently the law indicates an exemption for estate tax of up to $5 million for those who die in 2011 and 2012. What many people are unaware of is that this amount can easily be exceeded when you take life insurance coverage, a valuable home, healthy retirement balances and other assets into account.

“Don’t forget to count any private business ownership interests such as shares in a family corporation or partnership,” explained a New York Probate Lawyer.

Published on: August 13, 2011

New Estate Tax Law Alters Estate Decisions

by Stephen Bilkis

Extensive trust-planning and maneuvering tax law in order to protect a surviving spouse has long been a central part of the job of any qualified New York City Estate Planning Lawyer. Almost as soon as the United States Government christened the estate tax, wealthy families began finding ways around paying. Of central concern for many married couples is how to avoid the estate tax long enough that if one partner in the marriage dies, the other partner’s assets are protected, and any shared wealth is not taxed.

One of the most time-trusted methods of escaping the estate tax is a bypass trust- known more familiarly as a “family trust”. This trust is typically used to set up a trust-fund. The money which is set aside in a trust fund or other tax sheltered annuity (another common example is a charitable trust), is not taxable by the government. The surviving spouse can continue to live on whatever interest the fund might bear. In some cases, he or she can actually use a small percentage of the principal as well. Lawyers in Brooklyn and The Bronx are constantly trying to improve their handling of these problems.

According to the New York Estate Planning Lawyer we spoke with, the new tax law enacted at the end of 2010 could spell good news for married couples trying to plan their estate. By significantly raising the exemption and making those exemptions portable (in other words, transferable from one spouse to another in the event of death), the federal government has given couples the option of leaving funds directly to one another, without going through a trust or other tax shelter.

Published on: April 21, 2011

Julia Eckhart died leaving two children

by Stephen Bilkis

August 13, 1970, Julia Eckhart died leaving two children, Charlotte Eckart and Frank Darmody. In her will that was dated August 4, 1966, she left each of them the sum of $50 and the rest to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. The will was admitted to probate and daughter, Ms. Eckart and Mr. Darmody submitted intent to contest the will. This is because of the size of the estate distributed by the will. A New York Estate Litigation Lawyer says that in the Estates, Power and Trusts Law, gifts to a charitable institution should not be more than half of the estate if contested by a descendant or parent. The law further states that the person can only contest if they are to receive a monetary benefit if the contest is successful as the beneficiary of the will.

Being the children of the deceased is not questionable. What needs to be decided on is if they have the right because they will receive a pecuniary benefit. The executor’s point of view was that the children did not have the right as the will expressed that Mrs. Eckhart, the deceased, did not want to give her children more than the $50, she provided for each of them. He relied on the case of Joseph Cairo as an example. The Cairo case had the specific words that said that the deceased did not wish to give the grandson, Joseph Cairo, anything from the estate. The grandson was not going to benefit from a successful contest.

In this matter, according to a report, the deceased placed her relatives in different levels as her children got $50 inheritance while the others did not. There was nothing that specifically or expressly stated she wished they do not receive anything more than the $50, she had appropriated in her will. The $50 in this case is insignificant. It does not show the intent of the testatrix if she wished to take away inheritance from her children. The law takes out intention with its provision. It keeps only what is stated in the will.