Long Island

Published on: January 2, 2014

Court Discusses the Issuance of Premliminary Letters Testamentary

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, a motion and cross motion places in issue the rights of persons interested in this estate to obtain discovery from the preliminary executor pursuant to subdivision 4 of SCPA 1412. In 1963, based upon the recommendation of the Bennett Commission, the Legislature created a new type of letters called “preliminary letters testamentary” and a new fiduciary office called “preliminary executor”. SCPA 1412 describes in detail the powers and limitations of such office and the expeditious procedure by which such letters may be obtained. Before this new fiduciary office was created, when pressing matters of estate administration arose in the course of a delayed probate proceeding, the nominated fiduciary could be involved procedures obtain letters of temporary administration, a fiduciary office with rather limited powers.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, when it was originally enacted as SCA 153-a, as well as now, SCPA 1412, contained a subdivision which provided: “The court may limit preliminary letters testamentary to the receipt of assets specified in an order and may prohibit the collection of any other assets of the decedent, may make such directions as it deems proper and necessary in respect of the custody and preservation of all papers of the decedent and for making them available for examination and copying by any person or persons interested in the estate or may limit and restrict the person named in such letters in any manner that the court deems advisable for the effective protection of the rights of all persons who may have an interest in the estate of the decedent” (now subd. 4 of SCPA 1412).

A Queen Probate Attorney said the issue in this case is the construction of the phrase giving the court in issuing preliminary letters discretion “to make such directions as it deems proper and necessary in respect of the custody and preservation of all papers of the decedent and for making them available for examination and copying by any person or persons interested in the estate”.

Published on: December 27, 2013

Petitioner Seeks to Dispense with Service of Process of Will

by Stephen Bilkis

A petition for probate of the decedent’s will has been filed with the Probate Department of the New York Court. The petitioner is the nominated coexecutor and son of the decedent.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that the petitioner has requested that the court dispense with the service of process upon the grandchildren of the decedent who are persons adversely affected by the exercise of powers of appointment in the decedent’s propounded will.

“The Official Form of Probate Petition (Form No. 7) lists among the persons to be cited ‘all persons adversely affected by the purported exercise by such will of any power of appointment.’ Section 1403 does not make such persons essential parties to the probate. This omission was not an oversight on the part of the Legislature or the Commission on Estates. The inclusion of such persons was considered and rejected because it might happen that the parties would not be aware of any power of appointment until after the probate proceeding terminated and then the omission of an essential party to the proceeding could constitute an infirmity in the decree. The inclusion of the parties in the Official Form was intended to remind attorneys of the prudence of citing them.

Published on: December 26, 2013

Claimant Brings Suit Based on Oral Promise by Decedent

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, this is an application by the preliminary executors in a probate proceeding to dismiss a claim asserted against the estate. This claim to one-half of the estate was made by the claimant simultaneously with his opposition to a decree approving a compromise agreement which would dispose of a heavily litigated protracted will contest. Under several wills of the decedent, including this last will, he would be entitled to a $20,000 legacy. The claim is based on an alleged oral promise by the decedent to make a will which would give to the claimant one-half of the residuary estate in consideration of the claimant’s conveyance to the decedent of a one-half interest in a house on Fire Island. This house was sold on January 7, 1973 for $47,000. The claimant asserts that his interest in the estate is upwards of $500,000.

A New York Will Contest Lawyer said that, a bill of particulars served in support of the claim alleges that the agreement was partly oral and partly in writing. The writing is a will dated January 18, 1965 which was revoked by a later will. There were several later wills, and deeds affecting the Fire Island property. The first deed made on February 2, 1963 was given to the claimant as grantee by the decedent as grantor. That deed reserved to the decedent a life estate. The next deed dated January 16, 1965 was executed by the claimant, creating a joint tenancy with right of survivorship in himself and the decedent. The third deed is from the joint tenants as grantors to the decedent as grantee. The will relied upon by the claimant bequeaths to him one-half of the residuary estate after bequests of tangible personal property and eight general legacies of $5,000 each and another bequest relating to stock in a closed corporation.

The issue in this case is whether the claim should be dismissed on the ground that the claim is not maintainable because it is barred by the statute of frauds.

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 20, 2012

Court Decides Whether Determination and Notice of Violation is Null and Void

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs own 1 of 20 lots comprising a subdivision known as Estates at Brookview. As such, the plaintiffs are members of the Estates at Brookview Homeowner’s Association (hereinafter the Association) and subject to its bylaws and “Declaration of Restrictions, Covenants, and Easements” (hereinafter the Declaration). In the fall of 2004 the plaintiffs constructed a shed on their property. Upon inspection of the completed structure by the Town of Chester’s Building Inspector, the shed was approved and the plaintiffs were issued a certificate of compliance.

A New York Probate Lawyer said after complaints about the shed were received by the Board of Directors of the Association, the plaintiffs received a document entitled “Determination and Notice of Violation” (hereinafter the DNV), issued by the Board, advising them that their shed violated certain provisions of the Declaration. The plaintiffs contend that the Board lacked the authority to issue the DNV.

As a result, a New York Estate Litigation Lawyer said that, plaintiffs filed an action for summary judgment, declaring that the document entitled “Determination and Notice of Violation” issued by the Board of Directors of the Estates at Brookview Homeowner’s Association is null and void. A New York Estate Litigation Lawyer said that defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment and for an award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to the Association’s bylaws and “Declaration of Restrictions, Covenants, and Easements.

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 3, 2011

Considering A Lifetime Gift? This is Your Year, says New York Probate Lawyer

by Stephen Bilkis

According to one NY Probate Lawyer, this is the year to give. Thanks to sweeping changes in the laws governing the estate tax by President Obama late in 2010, making a lifetime gift is now easier than ever.

Lifetime gifts have long been the preferred method for transferring wealth from one family member to another. Lifetime gifts are not subjected to the heavy tax burden which posthumous gifts typically carry. The catch, in the past, was that lifetime gifts were capped at a relatively low level before the Gift Tax kicked in, meaning that the amount that could be transferred to a spouse or other loved one was actually quite small. The new law raises that cap to an all-time high.

If you are an Asset Planner or New York Estate Planning Lawyer, this new loophole could mean big business in the next two years. The new law is set to expire in 2012, and no additional plans have been made in Congress, meaning that the amount of time taxpayers have to take advantage of the new law could be short. Planners in New York City and Long Island are aware of these changes.

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.