Staten Island

Published on: February 14, 2014

Court Rules on Accounting Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said this is an accounting proceeding in which the court is asked to determine whether assets of the estate located in New York should be distributed directly to legatees or whether they should be transmitted to the California administrator for distribution there. A New York Estate Lawyer said that, the deceased until three years prior to his death had been a New York resident. He had prepared a will here naming the Chase Manhattan Bank executor. He then moved to California, purchased real estate, established his residence and executed three codicils to the will. The codicils disposed of his California realty, enlarged the legacy of a niece, a California resident, dropped one of the named executors but retained the Chase Manhattan Bank. Most of the estate is here in New York.

A New York Estate Will Lawyer said that, after decedent’s death, the executor petitioned for the probate of the will and codicils in this jurisdiction. A contest ensued which was subsequently settled and the objections were withdrawn. Letters testamentary were then issued to the Chase Manhattan Bank. Shortly thereafter, the decedent’s niece, a legatee, applied to the Los Angeles Probate Court for letters of administration. That court granted letters to the Public Administrator of Los Angeles.

A Nassau Probate Lawyer said that, although the letters issued to the Chase Manhattan Bank were in form letters of original probate, it would appear that in reality the deceased being a resident of California the domiciliary administration is there and the administration here is therefore in its nature ancillary. The Public Administrator of Los Angeles as administrator c.t.a. has objected to the proposal of the executor to distribute the assets in its possession to the legatees directly rather than to remit them to the domiciliary representative in California for distribution by him.

Published on: January 8, 2014

Plaintiff Claims In Rem Proceeding was Defective Due to Proceedural Errors

by Stephen Bilkis

A Probate Lawyer said this case involves a poor estate administration. Plaintiff sues to foreclose a mortgage on certain property because of defaults in the payment of installments of interest by the mortgagor, XYZ Corp. The City of New York, as a party defendant, claims unencumbered title to the subject premises as the result of an In Rem foreclosure which was instituted in 1975 for tax arrears. Plaintiff alleges that the City of New York’s claim of title is a nullity and therefore that such claim cannot defeat this action to foreclose the mortgage.

The facts of the case are as follows:

On March 22, 1966, ABCD Bank became the owner and holder of a mortgage covering certain vacant and unimproved land located at Richmond Avenue and Drumgoole Road on Staten Island, New York.

Published on: January 2, 2014

Court Determines if Corporation is Sole Surviving Trustee of Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Estate Lawyer said that, the testator, while a resident of New York, executed a will in 1904 and a codicil thereto in 1911. He died a resident of Rhode Island in 1912 and the aforesaid instruments were admitted to probate as his will in that state. A New York Banking Corporation became successor trustee under the will in 1918 by appointment of the then surviving trustees.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, an accounting was had in Rhode Island in 1948 and the accounts of the banking corporation and an individual trustee were settled by a decree made on February 7, 1949. The instant proceeding is brought by the corporation as sole surviving trustee for the settlement of its accounts for a period subsequent to June 21, 1948 and for construction of the will. Other issues have been raised by respondents but it has been stipulated that the construction question shall be disposed of as a preliminary issue.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, certain testamentary trusts have terminated and remainder interests therein are payable pursuant to a direction of the testator which he expressed in the following language: to the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Thomas’ Church in the City of New York, for the purpose of erecting and maintaining, in such place as they may select, a building or buildings for the care of persons suffering from tuberculosis, to be called the Scott Memorial Home.’

Published on: December 22, 2013

Petitioner Seeking Damages from Probate Attorney

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, this is a motion to dismiss an amended petition filed in a pending accounting proceeding. The amended petition states two causes of action seeking damages in the amount of $20,000 (less disbursements of up to $3,000) from the movant arising out of his allegedly negligent performance of his duties as an attorney in connection with the settlement of the contested probate of this decedent’s will. There are four petitioners: two are hospitals and were the movant’s clients in the probate contest; the other two petitioners were parties to the settlement as persons interested in the estate but were not the movant’s clients. They are the decedent’s separated wife and the trustee of a pre-residuary trust. The question raised by this motion is the scope of the movant’s liability for negligence to persons with whom he had no privity of contract.

A New York Will Lawyer said the background facts here begin with a 1967 separation agreement between the decedent and his wife (who is, as indicated, one of the four petitioners) in which he undertook to execute a will creating a $325,000 trust to pay her $12,000 a year from income or, if income was insufficient therefor, from principal. After her death the remaining principal and any accumulated income was to be paid to the two hospitals who are co-petitioners. The trustee of this trust is the fourth petitioner.

A New York Will Contest Lawyer said that, in 1968, the decedent executed a will creating a pre-residuary trust which complied with the separation agreement. The residue of his estate was bequeathed to the same two hospitals. In 1972, he executed a new will which contained the same pre-residuary trust, but the residue under this will was bequeathed to his nephew. At this time he also created a substantial inter vivos trust which significantly reduced his testamentary estate. The beneficiary of the inter vivos trust was the said nephew.

Published on: May 31, 2013

Petitioners Look for Power to Evict Tenants from Property

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 30 December 2006, the decedent died a resident of Nassau County leaving a last will and testament dated 13 July 2006. On 19 March 2007, the will was admitted to probate and letters issued to A and B as co-executors and co-trustees. After making some specific bequests, the decedent left her residuary estate to her four daughters, A, B, C, and D, in equal shares; and placed C’s share in a Supplemental Needs Trust under her name created pursuant to Article Fourth of the will. Under the will, the trustees were given discretion in distributing income and principal to C; that at C’s death, the remainder of the trust, if any, will pass to C’s son, CC; and D is the named successor fiduciary. The estate contains approximately $125,000.00 in personal property and three homes, which are valued in the aggregate at $1,285,000.00.

Thereafter, a New York Probate Lawyer said five miscellaneous proceedings were filed with the court in connection with the estate administration and that of the trust. On 10 December 2008, some of the issues raised were resolved in a stipulation of partial settlement entered into by all the interested parties, viz: that A and B, as co-trustees of the supplemental needs trust, would enter into a contract for the purchase of property-two which C and CC agreed to use as their long-term primary residence; that C and CC, who were residing in decedent’s real property, property-one, would vacate that property and move to property-two; and that the fiduciaries are obliged to put property-one up for sale within 90 days after respondents move out. Pursuant to the agreement, the co-executors purchased property-two and made it available to respondents as of 16 March 2009. Nonetheless, respondents refused to move out of property-one, and the agreement does not specify a date by which they are required to do so.

Published on: September 24, 2011

South Florida Woman’s Fight for Inheritance Ends Up in Bankruptcy Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The niece of a deceased ice cream chain owner has ended up in bankruptcy court, indicated a firm of New York Estate Planning Lawyers.

It is her assertion that she is the rightful heir and administrator of the ice cream fortune – not the foundation to which the money has gone. She already made several attempts in New York, before filing personal bankruptcy in Fort Lauderdale, saying she had $32 million in litigation claims as her assets.

There are some who say it was a good idea, legally, for her to file bankruptcy. It may have held back some orders from the New York judges who are still overseeing her conflict with the foundation. Unfortunately for the would-be heiress, it did not quite go that way.

Published on: September 14, 2011

Estate Tax Laws in Illinois worth looking into, writes a New York Probate Lawyer.

by Stephen Bilkis

During one of the state of Illinois’ largest ever tax increases; the new public act appears to contain a nice loophole for the wealthy deceased, said a New York Estate Planning lawyer.

Earlier this year the Governor of Illinois signed into law the Public Act 096-1496, the Taxpayer Accountability and Budget Stabilization Act.

Aside from increasing state income taxes on individuals and corporations, [it] reinstated the Illinois estate tax effective January 1, 2011, with a $2,000,000 exemption.

Published on: July 28, 2011

New Tax Law Changes the Game

by Stephen Bilkis

The Estate Planning community is in a buzz over a new tax law approved by president Obama in late December of 2010. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, or TRA 2010 for short, is a “game-changer,” one New York Estate Planning Lawyer is saying. In the past, the entire estate planning business revolved around estate taxes, and how those taxes were applied. In light of the new law, these taxes represent a much smaller hurdle to the industry at large. Lawyers in The Bronx and Staten Island are very aware that laws can change at any time.

If you are a New York Estate Planning Lawyer, and are considering giving your congressional representative a thank-you call, you are certainly not alone; but I would caution you to first read the fine print of the law. While no law is ever completely permanent, this law comes with an expiration date. After two years, the law is slated for review. If it is not reviewed and reinstated at that point, then estate tax law will effectively be reset to the levels present before the law was enacted.

On the other side of the equation, one New York Estate Planning Lawyer claims that this new law sounds the death knell for the Estate Tax in general. He contends that under the New TRA law, the value of collectible Estate Taxes is now so small as to be almost negligible, and would be a waste of IRS manpower to even bother to collect. Only time will tell whether the new law will act as a temporary tax relief mechanism, or as a stepping stone to Estate Tax repeal.