Queens

Published on: January 14, 2015

Petitioner Moves to Amend Final Accounting

by Stephen Bilkis

Probate Lawyers said that in this contested accounting proceeding, the petitioner moves for an order permitting him to amend the final accounting to include trustee’s commissions to which he alleges he is entitled. Respondent opposes the motion. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted

A Kings County Estate lawyer said that the decedent died on May 6, 1979, a resident of Nassau County. His will and a codicil thereto were admitted to probate by decree dated May 25, 1979. The will nominates the decedent’s two daughters and his grandson as co-executors and co-trustees of the trust created under Article FIFTH of the will. Letters testamentary and letters of trusteeship issued to them. The income beneficiaries of the Article FIFTH trust are the decedent’s two daughters and the decedent’s spouse, who died only a few months after the decedent. The remaindermen of the trust are the decedent’s grandchildren. On the other hand, the Oppositor fled objections to the account.

An Estate Lawyer said that according to his attorney, the co-executor is seeking leave to amend the account to include two-thirds trustee’s commissions chargeable to principal due to co-executor for the period of the account as shown on the amended affidavit sworn to on June 17, 2009. The total amount of these commissions is claimed to be $183,602.00.

Published on: January 13, 2015

Court Reviews Previous Account with Regard to Double Commissions

by Stephen Bilkis

A Probate Lawyer said the deceased died May 24, 1905, leaving a last will and testament which was duly admitted to probate in June, 1905. The testator left a widow and one child. The provisions of the will called the attention of the Court by the appellants.

A Kings County Probate lawyer said that in 1906 the executors of the will filed in the Surrogate’s Court an account of their proceedings to November 30, 1906. On the latter date a decree was entered in effect that the executors had accounted for all the money and property of the estate which had come to their hands as executors and judicially settling and allowing the account as filed. The decree further provided that the balance of cash and personal property in the possession of the executors was the sum of $11,392,724.22; that out of the balance in the hands of the executors they retain and pay over to each executor his or her statutory commission on the said property and estate for receiving, administering, and paying over the same, the sum of $149,494.39 to each, and one-half thereon to each for receiving the same as trustees; that the executors should pay over to and transfer to themselves as trustees the balance of cash and personal property then remaining in their hands to be held and administered by them under the trusts created by the will; that they should thereafter continue to perform their duties and exercise their powers as executors under the said will in all matters of administration, sale of real property, or anything else remaining to be done, and that said executors be and they hereby are discharged and released from all liability in respect of all matters and on account of all other acts and doing embraced in the said accounting and this order and decree.

Nassau County Probate Lawyers said from year to year thereafter down to and including the year 1911 separate accounts were filed by the parties, covering their proceedings as executors and also as trustees. As executors they accounted for the proceeds of the sale of real estate and for the rents and income of the property of the estate, both real and personal. Decrees were duly made by the Surrogate’s Court settling such separate accounts, and, although they do not appear in the record, the briefs contain a statement that in each instance the decrees directed them as executors to turn over to themselves as trustees the proceeds of the sales of the real estate made by them as executors in each year, and they were therein allowed one-half the statutory commission for receiving the proceeds of the sales of real estate, one-half commissions for paying the same out as executors to themselves as trustees, and one-half commissions as trustees for receiving the same.

Published on: January 9, 2015

Plaintiff Moves to Vacate Prior Court Order Regarding Settlement of Proceeds

by Stephen Bilkis

A Probate Lawyer said this matter arises out of a fatal, three-vehicle accident which occurred on September 25, 2006 on Interstate 87 in Ulster County, New York. At the time of the accident, the decedent was a front seat passenger in a vehicle being operated by defendant AS which, at the time in question, was proceeding north on I-87 near the Kingston exit. At this point in time, AS was allegedly cut-off by a pick- up truck towing a horse trailer (owned and operated by defendants L and RRs, respectively) which attempted to make a U-turn from the northbound shoulder of I-87, purportedly ten feet in front of the AS vehicle. After contact with the pick-up truck, AS’s Jeep was apparently propelled into the southbound lanes of I-87, where it was struck by a vehicle owned by defendant Y and operated by defendant LJ.

There is no dispute that Mr. V died as a result of the massive injuries which he sustained in this accident. However, as shall presently appear, a dispute has arisen as to the accuracy of AS’s claim that the decedent was asleep at the time of the initial impact and, therefore, incapable of experiencing any degree of pre-impact terror or conscious pain and suffering in the above accident.

An Estate Lawyer said that on his motion for leave to intervene pursuant to CPLR 1012, 1013, CX contends that the Order of this Court, dated August 10, 2009, should be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015, and the matter removed or transferred to the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County, for further proceedings to judicially account for the settlement proceeds. The order in question provides, in relevant part, for the settlement of plaintiffs’ cause of action for wrongful death for the sum of $300,000.00 and the voluntary discontinuance, with prejudice, of decedent’s personal injury action. In support of his motion, CX maintains that this court’s allocation order is invalid since all of the interested parties who might be adversely effected were not joined in the compromise proceeding.

Published on: January 4, 2015

Court Questions if Venue is Proper in Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In this action for medical malpractice, the claimants are represented by the executor of their estate.

A Probate Lawyer said the records show that one of the accused has moved the medical malpractice action to change venue pursuant to CPLR section 510(1), claiming that claimants improperly placed venue based on the current New York residence of a co-accused doctor, rather than on his residence in another county at the time of the alleged negligence. The complainant opposes, arguing that the doctor’s current residence is a proper basis for placing venue in New York County.

Hence, the issue is whether or not the venue in this action is improperly laid.

Published on: December 14, 2014

Court Hears Appeal for the Issuance of a Set Off

by Stephen Bilkis

A Probate Lawyer said in an action to foreclose a materialman’s lien, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated November 2, 1981, which confirmed the Referee’s decision of July 7, 1981, in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant Corporation in the total amount of $64,112.81.

By order of this court dated September 13, 1982, the appeal was held in abeyance and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, with the direction that upon remittitur “Special Term should refer this matter to the Referee for a factual determination with regard to whether defendant is entitled to a ‘set-off’ or credit in the sum of $25,000, thereby reducing the principal amount of the judgment against it to that extent”. The referee’s report on remittitur, dated November 15, 1982, states that Beverly is not entitled to the $25,000 setoff.

A general construction contractor of a residential community located on Staten Island, was a joint venture comprised of defendant and another corporation. Defendant is the representative of the estate, the subcontractor employed under two separate contracts to install the plumbing in those sections of the Village designated as Loop A and Loop B. Plaintiff allegedly delivered materials to Iosue for use at the Village project, and for which it was never compensated. Its lien in the amount of $43,148.88 was timely filed on December 28, 1972. It seeks recovery of that amount from Company.

Published on: December 12, 2014

Court Decides an Action for Ejectment of Public Administrator

by Stephen Bilkis

Probate Lawyers said the People of the State of New York, by its Attorney-General, have commenced this action in ejectment against the Public Administrator of Richmond County in his capacity as said administrator and as administrator of the goods, chattels and credits of a decease; his widow, if any; his heirs at law, devisees and distributees; and any other persons, corporate or otherwise, including unknowns, interested in or claiming any right relative to certain hereinafter mentioned real property.

A New York Estate attorney said that the plaintiff demands judgment for the immediate possession of the said real property which it is alleged was formerly owned by the decedent and of which it is claimed he was seized in fee simple and was possessed at the time of his death, on May 6, 1950.

An Estate Lawyer said at the time of the trial, the Public Administrator appeared by his attorney and withdrew his answer to the complaint. The other defendants, except as herein stated, are in default. A guardian ad litem, appointed for such of the defendants as may be infants or incompetents, and to appear as attorney for such defendants as may be in military service of the United States or have been ordered to report for induction, interposed the usual guardian’s answer in behalf of said infants and incompetents and filed a notice of appearance as such attorney.

Published on: December 9, 2014

The Court Decides if a Company is Authorization

by Stephen Bilkis

Probate Lawyer from the records, the instant case involves a will contest as regards the legacy of the decedent. The decedent died in 1905. By her will she bequeathed $10,000 to a Hose Company ‘to be kept at all times intact and the income derived from the safe and judicious investment thereof to be devoted to the reasonable and proper uses of said company for whatever purposes its members acting as an organization may see fit to direct.’ If, however, the legacy for any reason ‘shall lapse or fail or for any cause not take effect in whole or in part,’ she bequeathed it to the one who survived her.

The Hose Company was a corporation organized for the purpose of aiding in the suppression of fires in the village. It could only engage under the statute in such business as properly belongs to hose companies. In taking part in the prevention of fires it was placed under the control and subject to the orders of the village fire authorities. Annually its trustees must file an inventory of its property and an affidavit that it has not directly or indirectly engaged in any other business. Before its certificate of incorporation could be filed it had to be approved by the trustees of the village. It might take and hold personal property bequeathed to it, and it was further said to be capable of taking and holding property for the purpose of its incorporation and for no other purpose. It was named after the father of the decedent. To it the legacy was paid in 1906.

The issue raised before the court is whether or not the company is authorized to received the legacy.

Published on: December 3, 2014

Court Reviews Will Provisions

by Stephen Bilkis

Probate Lawyers saidiIn this Probate case, Decedent died on January 7, 1881, leaving a last will and testament, the third and seventh clauses of which are as follows: ‘Third. I desire to make ample provision for the support and maintenance of my said wife, and, in addition to what I have above given, I order and direct that my executors, before paying the legacies hereinafter mentioned, do set apart of my estate the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, and keep the same invested and out at interest, and that they apply the interest or income therefrom to the use of my said wife, in half yearly payments, or oftener, if convenient, during the term of her natural life; and that from and after her death they pay over the said sum of one hundred thousand dollars to our adopted son, if he shall then have arrived at the age of twenty-eight years; but if at the decease of my wife he shall not have arrived at the age of twenty-eight years, then my executors are directed to keep the same invested until he shall have arrived at that age, and that they apply the interest or income to his use, and on his arrival at the age of twenty-eight years the said principal and the accumulated interest (if any) is to be paid to him; but if my said adopted son shall die before he arrives at the age of twenty-eight years, and not leaving lawful issue him surviving, then the said sum of one hundred thousand dollars shall be divided as follows, and I do give and bequeath the same accordingly.

An Estate Lawyer said it was held by the surrogate, and upon appeal by the supreme court, that the heir took a vested remainder in the $100,000 which the executors were directed to set apart and hold for the benefit of the widow during her life, and that he took it by virtue of the language contained in the third clause of the will; that, therefore, the testator did not die intestate as to any portion of his estate; and that his next of kin were not entitled to any hearing upon the accounting. Without determining whether or not the courts below were right in their construction of the third clause of the will, we have no reason to doubt that he took a vested interest in remainder in the $100,000 under the residuary clause. It is clear that the testator did not intend to die intestate as to any portion of his estate. He had taken particular care as to the dispositions made in the prior clauses of the will, and it is true that in several of them he provided distinctly that in certain contingencies the gifts should become part of his residuary estate, and that he made no such provision in reference to the $100,000. But we do not deem that circumstance of much importance.

Nassau County Probate Lawyers said in this case the residuary estate was large, and no direction was given in the will for the disposition of the income thereof until the heir reached the age of 28 years; and the next of kin of the testator, therefore, claim that such income was undisposed of, and that they were entitled to the same. We think the disposition of the income is controlled by the provisions of the Revised Statutes, which provides that ‘when, in consequence of a valid limitation of an expectant estate, there shall be a suspense of the power of alienation or of the ownership, during the continuance of which the rents and profits shall be undisposed of, and no valid direction for their accumulation is given, such rents and profits shall belong to the persons presumptively entitled to the next eventual estate.’ There was no direction whatever for the accumulation of the income.

Published on: December 2, 2014

Court Decides Apportionment of Estate Taxes

by Stephen Bilkis

Probate Lawyers said that according to sources, in two of three consolidated proceedings the trustees under two indentures of Inter vivos trusts, seek judicial settlement of their accounts and construction of certain provisions of the trusts. Specifically, as holders of shares of stock of a regulated investment company (sometimes called a ‘mutual fund’), they seek instructions whether within the purview of the provisions of the trusts, capital gains distributions made by the company are income distributable to the income beneficiaries of the trusts or are principal allocable to the corpora of the trusts. They also request instructions concerning the allocation of estate taxes and attorneys’ fees among the persons interested in one of the trusts. In the third proceeding the executors of the will of the settlor of the trusts request instructions concerning the allocation of estate taxes and attorneys’ fees insofar as they are referable to one of the trusts and other property. The parties have stipulated, with the approval of the court, that examination and settlement of the trustees’ accounts shall be deferred pending determination by the court of the issues on which instructions are sought. There shall be considered first the treatment of capital gains distributions, as between principal and income, paid to the trustees on the shares of stock of the regulated investment company. At the time of the institution of these proceedings the trustees held 81,247 shares of stock of an investment company in the corpus of the 1931 trust and 120,000 shares in the corpus of the 1935 trust.

An Estate Lawyer said that the investment company has qualified as an open-end regulated investment company, having registered under the provisions of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. Each of its investors own a pro rata share of the securities held in its portfolio. Its earnings are acquired from dividends and interest paid on securities in its portfolio which are classified as ordinary income, and also from the net profits realized on the sale or exchange of its investments which are designated as capital gains. As required by the Investment Company Act, its statements to its shareholders and the public specifically characterize the source of the earnings. It is not disputed that ordinary income is properly treated as income distributable to the income beneficiaries. The issue arises as to the allocation of the capital gains distributions. The petitions of the trustees allege that each year the Investment company pays capital gains dividends which are payable at the election of the owner of such shares in cash or in additional shares of the corporation’s stock. They are uncertain as to whether such capital gains dividends are income and distributable to the income beneficiaries of the trusts or are principal to be retained by the petitioners in the corpora of the trusts. The income beneficiaries maintain that they should be treated as income and distributed to them. The guardian ad litem appointed to represent the infant remainder men on this issue contends that they are principal and should be added to the corpora of the trusts. Initially, consideration must be given to the trust instruments to determine whether the settlor’s intention concerning the distribution can be ascertained therefrom. If it can, it would be controlling.

Queens Probate Lawyers said the paramount rule in the construction of Inter vivos trust indentures is to ascertain the settlor’s intention as expressed in the instruments in the light of the circumstances surrounding and attending their execution, and when ascertained to effectuate that intention unless contrary to public policy or an established rule of law. Other than those heretofore related, the record is devoid of any extrinsic circumstances existing at the time of the execution of the instruments which would shed light on the settlor’s intentions concerning the allocation, as between principal and income, of the capital gains dividends with which we are here concerned. There is no evidence that at the time of the amendment of the 1931 trust in 1935 and the creation of the 1935 trust that the settlor was familiar with the corporation of regulated investment companies or the nature of their dividend distributions. As a medium of investment those companies grew in popularity as a result of the enactment of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the tax advantages accruing to the companies and shareholders under sub-chapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 where the company submits to federal regulation thereunder. It was not until the settlor decided in 1958 to exchange Pine’s assets for the shares of an investment company that the evidence discloses the settlor’s awareness of their form of distribution of income and capital gains dividends. Looking to the trust indentures the only reference to the treatment to be accorded to corporate dividends is found in the provisions that ‘any and all dividends payable in the stock of the corporation or association declaring or authorizing the same, and declared and authorized in respect of any stock constituting in whole or in part the principal of the trust fund, as well as all rights to subscribe for new or additional stock, shall be wholly principal and not income of the trust.’ However, those provisions do not contain any express direction concerning the allocation of dividends payable at the election of the trustees in cash or in additional shares of the Investment company. It is so conceded by the guardian. Nor may the distribution by the Investment Company be considered as a right to subscribe for new or additional shares of stock. Implicit in the term ‘rights to subscribe’ as used in the law there is contemplated an increase in the capital of the corporation giving its shareholders the right to subscribe to new shares at less than the market value of the shares. When capital gains distributions are made by the investment company, they are not accompanied by any increase in its capital stock, nor are their shareholders required to pay for the additional shares they may elect to receive. Being unable to glean the settlor’s intention concerning the treatment to be given those capital gains distributions guidance must be sought in the presumptive canons of interpretation adopted by the courts and the Legislature ‘to fill such gaps and to supply that for which the settlor has not lawfully provided.’

Published on: November 23, 2014

Court Reviews Petition to Modify Endowment Fund

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said this is a petition to modify restrictions on an endowment fund, pursuant to section 8-1.1 of the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law or, in the alternative, section 522 of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law. Petitioners, Trustees of a University, seek an order authorizing the subdivision of an endowment fund created by a testamentary bequest to the College of Medicine. The Attorney General of the State of New York (on behalf of ultimate charitable beneficiaries) has reviewed the current audit of the fund and raises no objection to the relief requested in the petition.

A Kings County Estate lawyer said that a decedent died on March 9, 1985. Her last will and testament was admitted to probate by a decree of this court dated April 5, 1985.

In September 1986, Columbia University received $1,500,000 from the estate of the decedent. The University established the Professorship (“Chair”) for Clinical Medicine. As of September 30, 2009, the value of the endowment fund had increased to over $5,000,000.