Estate Administration

Published on: December 22, 2012

Both a Will and Advanced Health Care Directive are Important in Estate Planning

by Stephen Bilkis

Facing your mortality is not a pleasant task. However, it is important to discuss an estate plan with a NY estate attorney in order to make sure that your family and loved ones are taken care of should you pass away. A last will and testament is one of the most important documents that will be in an estate plan. Another document that should be considered is an Advanced Health Care Directive.

An Advanced Health Care Directive is a document that should be created as soon as possible. This document should be in place long before they would be needed. An estate lawyer will inform you how important it is to have this type of document in place. The Advanced Health Care Directive describes your wishes involving your health care should you become incapacitated and unable to make these decisions for yourself. This document will include what your wishes are in regard to life support, medications, and which life sustaining measures should be taken in regard to your health care needs.

A New York Probate Lawyer said a tragedy may occur at any time. This is why the Advanced Health Care Directive is so important to discuss with your estate lawyer. If there are no written instructions provided by you about your care all of your health care decisions will be made by either the doctors or your loved ones. This can be a difficult burden for your loved ones to face, especially when they are already dealing with the tragedy.

Published on: December 21, 2012

Court Determines the Proximate Cause of Injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs allegedly sustained personal injuries when the limb of a tree fell onto the motor vehicle in which they were traveling, in the defendant Village of Great Neck Estates. Thereafter, a New York Probate Lawyer said that, the plaintiffs commenced this action, alleging, inter alia, that the accident and their resulting injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of the Defendant County of Nassau in failing, among other things, to remove a dead and/or diseased tree. A Nassau Estate Litigation Lawyer said that, the defendant County subsequently cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not complied with the prior written notice requirement set forth in section 12-4.0 (e) of the Administrative Code of Nassau County and that it lacked both actual and constructive notice of the purported hazard. A Nassau Estate Litigation Lawyer said that, the defendant County additionally sought to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Lakeysha Agugbo on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The Supreme Court properly denied the County’s cross motion and held that: In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant County of Nassau appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), entered February 21, 2007, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Queens Probate Lawyers said the issue in this case is whether defendant is liable for damages, for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff on the ground that the resulting injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of the Defendant County in failing, among other things, to remove a dead and/or diseased tree.

The Court in deciding the case said that, Prior written notice statutes apply to “actual physical defects in the surface of a street, highway or bridge of a kind which do not immediately come to the attention of the town officers unless they are given actual notice thereof”. Accordingly, the Court held that, the prior written notice requirement invoked by the County does not apply to the facts of this case. Furthermore, the County failed to establish a prima facie case that it lacked actual and constructive notice of the alleged hazard in this case. Lastly, the Court held that, the plaintiff Lakeysha Agugbo was not required to establish that she sustained a serious injury in the subject accident as she did not allege any negligence on the part of the County in the use or operation of a motor vehicle. Instead, the allegations against the County related to premises liability. Therefore, the Court held that, the County does not qualify as a covered person within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (j) and § 5104 (a).

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: December 19, 2012

Here is Why You Should Have a Living Will

by Stephen Bilkis

No one really wants to think about what is going to happen when they die. However, it is necessary to plan for this. There are several documents that should be part of your estate plan. The first is the will. This document provides information about what you wish to happen to your estate upon your death. An estate attorney can help you prepare a will that will meet the necessary requirements of the law.

Another document that should be part of your estate plan is an Advanced Health Care Directive (AHCD). The AHCD is a document that is written to express your wishes in regard to your health care needs should you become terminally ill, brain dead, or permanently unconscious. This document may also be referred to by an estate lawyer as a living will.

No matter how wealthy you are or what type of assets that you have in your estate; every person should have a living will. Here are several reasons why you should have a living will and discuss the document with your estate attorney.

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: October 21, 2012

Court Decides if Formal Accounting Necessary

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with the accounting of Leif I Rubinstein as the executor of the estate of William Gillett who is deceased. The case is being held in the Surrogates Court of Suffolk County. This is an executor’s account proceeding (estate administration) where the attorney fiducia is requesting nunc pro tunc approval for the payment that he made to himself for the legal services that he provided on behalf of the decedent’s estate. He did not have judicial authorization to make the payment. He is also seeking approval of disbursements that he made.

Case Background

Jurisdiction has been obtained over the parties for this proceeding and they have each executed waivers of service of process and have consented to granting the relief that has been requested.

Published on: August 1, 2012

An Estate Administrator Seeks to Bar Property Transfer

by Stephen Bilkis

A deceased wife, who owned a property at Brooklyn, has taken sole title as an occupant by the entirety following the death of her husband. The day after the death of the wife, a woman performed a deed whereby she allegedly conveyed, as the estate administrator and titled the property to herself as recipient. The woman performed a mortgage on the property in favor of a financial institution to secure a loan in the amount of $250,000.00. Consequently, the woman again performed a mortgage on the property in favor of a mortgage company to secure a loan in the amount of $340,000.00. According to the settlement, the mortgage transaction proceeds totaling $251,237.66 were used to pay off the prior financial institution’s mortgage. A New York Probate Lawyer said the approval of the financial institution’s mortgage was then recorded.

The complainant, a mortgage company, issued an approval of its $340,000.00 mortgage, apparently in error. The approval of the complainant’s mortgage was then recorded. Afterwards, the complainant filed a notice of pendency on the property and initiated the instant action to vacate the approval of mortgage and to restore its mortgage lien to its priority position.

Consequently, another woman claiming to be the administrator the estate (estate administration) moved for an order to cancel the notice of pendency, permanently barring as a lien and discharging of record to a certain mortgage on the property. The woman commenced an action against the first administrator to vacate and discharge of record the deed allegedly conveying title to the first administrator. In her complaint, she alleged that she was the sister and next of kin of the deceased wife and her interest in the property accrued upon the death of her sister. In addition, no will of the deceased wife has been probated in Kings County or elsewhere. She alleged that the first administrator had no power to convey the property of her deceased sister’s assets and the deed should therefore be nullified and discharged of record.

Published on: July 30, 2012

Guardian ad Litem Contends Court Lacks Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

In this proceeding for leave to compromise an action for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, the decedent was survived by his wife and two children all of whom presently reside in Ecuador. A New York Probate Lawyer said the decedent died as a result of injuries he sustained in a construction accident in Bronx, New York. The Court issued limited letters to petitioner, Juan Chavez, decedent’s uncle, to commence this action. Thereafter the action was commenced. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, approved the compromise of the action for $790,000.00, allowed attorney disbursements of $5,897.70 and attorneys’ fees of $261,367.43. This estate proceeding was commenced to fix the allocation of the recovery, reimburse the funeral creditors and fix the distribution of the balance among the distributees who suffered a pecuniary loss.

A Kings Estate Administration Lawyer said that, the petitioner served a citation in this matter by international certified mail, return receipt requested, upon decedent’s widow, Blanca Germania Guzman Marquez. Petitioner also served Blanca Germania Guzman Marquez with the citation on that date as the mother of decedent’s infant daughters, Blanca Raquel Pesantez Guzman and Carla Leonor Pesantez Guzman. Another citation was served that date on the infant, Blanca Raquel Pesantez Guzman since she was over 14 years old on that date. Service was complete on the date of the mailing thereof. No one appeared on that date. By court order, a guardian ad litem was appointed for Blanca Raquel Pesantez Guzman (hereinafter “Raquel”) and Carla Leonor Pesantez Guzman (hereinafter “Carla”). Thereafter, the guardian ad litem filed his report.

A Kings Estate Administration Lawyer said that, in the guardian ad litem’s report he points out that Raquel turned eighteen after he was appointed but before finalization of his report. The guardian ad litem reports that he has examined the file in this matter and concludes that the court lacks jurisdiction over Raquel presumably because of her eighteenth birthday and the fact that she is no longer under a disability. The guardian ad litem reports that he communicated this fact to petitioner’s attorney and suggested that he send a waiver and consent to Ecuador for Raquel’s signature and filed it with the Court. The guardian ad litem made his recommendations with respect to the compromise subject to jurisdiction. No waiver and consent to the relief requested was ever filed by Raquel.

Published on: July 11, 2012

Court Decides Probate of Case After Decedent Was Murdered

by Stephen Bilkis

On 2009, a mother with her two daughters died at the hand of their husband and father. After the incident, the father committed suicide and died later that same day. Consequently, the mother’s cousin granted the temporary letters of estate administration of the three deceased. The mother was survived by one of her sister however her sister filed a waiver of a notice to appear in court, renunciation and consent to the appointment of the mother’s cousin to serve as administrator in connection with each of the three estates.

The man, who was the cousin of the mother, then filed a four related petitions as temporary administrator of the estates of the mother and the two daughters, a petition for full letters of administration without bond in the assets of the mother and her daughters and a petition for the determination of the mother’s interest in real property, a condominium and a cooperative apartment.

A notice to appear in court for each petition was issued as well as the supplemental notice. The notice also duly served on the public administrator. In addition, the public administrator, whom at that time had been appointed as the temporary administrator of the husband’s assets, subsequently received a full letters. The heirs of the husband’s assets also received a full letters. The notices of appearance were filed but none of the husband’s beneficiary appeared.

Published on: June 14, 2012

Family Brings Estate Administration Action

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman resident of Israel died. She was survived by her husband and three children. The middle child filed a petition for letters of estate administration. The middle child’s petition alleged that her mother was an heir of the estate of her uncle and that the Chase Bank, which was the administrator of his uncle’s estate, failed to fully distribute the estate’s assets. The middle child petitioned for letters of estate administration to pursue the claim. The youngest daughter consented to her sister’s appointment. The eldest daughter of the woman who resides in Israel was served by mail and defaulted. Letters of estate administration were issued to the middle child of the deceased woman.

Eight months later, the middle child brought a proceeding to compel the bank to account for its administration of his deceased uncle’s estate. Shortly thereafter, a New York Probate Lawyer said the eldest daughter initiated proceedings in Israel to probate her mother’s will. The instrument left the deceased woman’s estate to her husband. If the husband predeceased her, the middle child receives $1 and the rest of the children will receive the balance of her estate in equal shares. The husband had died as a resident of Israel. His will was admitted to probate in Israel. Under his will, he left $1 to the middle child, $3,000 to the youngest daughter and the balance to the eldest daughter. The eldest daughter is the executrix of her father’s will and the nominated executrix under the proffered Israeli will of her mother.

The middle child filed objections in Israel to the probate of the Israeli will on the ground that her mother lacked testamentary capacity. Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said she also brought a proceeding in Israel to vacate the decree probating her father’s will. The eldest daughter and the bank, acting as trustees of the trust created for the deceased woman under the will of another brother, moved to vacate the letters of administration issued to the middle child. They claimed that the letters should be vacated because the deceased had a will, there were material misstatements in the petition for letters of administration, and she was not fit to serve as fiduciary.