Articles Posted in Westchester County

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, before the court is the first and final account of the Public Administrator for the estate of the decedent, who died intestate, a resident of Hempstead, on June 21, 1993, leaving one daughter, surviving. Limited letters of administration were issued to the Public Administrator on September 10, 1998 and modified on January 11, 2007 to enable the Public Administrator to collect the surplus money resulting from a foreclosure sale of decedent’s real property.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, the account filed by the Public Administrator shows the receipt of $17,670.16 of estate principal, which was supplemented by income collected totaling $208.50. This resulted in total charges of $17,878.66. This amount was reduced by administrative expenses through September 30, 2009 in the amount of $2,946.75, leaving a balance of $14,931.91 on hand. The Public Administrator seeks approval of the accounting, approval of commissions, the fixing of fees for the services of the attorney and accountant, and authorization to distribute the net estate to the Nassau County Department of Social Services in full satisfaction of its claim in the amount of $177,020.06 against the decedent’s estate. In addition, the court must release the administrator from the surety bond.

Westchester County Probate Lawyers said the issue in this case is whether the attorney’s fee should be granted by the court.

Continue reading

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, before the court is the first and final account of the Public Administrator for the estate of the decedent, who died intestate, a resident of Hempstead, on June 21, 1993, leaving one daughter, surviving. Limited letters of administration were issued to the Public Administrator on September 10, 1998 and modified on January 11, 2007 to enable the Public Administrator to collect the surplus money resulting from a foreclosure sale of decedent’s real property.

A Nassau Estate Litigation Lawyer said that, the account filed by the Public Administrator shows the receipt of $17,670.16 of estate principal, which was supplemented by income collected totaling $208.50. This resulted in total charges of $17,878.66. This amount was reduced by administrative expenses through September 30, 2009 in the amount of $2,946.75, leaving a balance of $14,931.91 on hand. The Public Administrator seeks approval of the accounting, approval of commissions, the fixing of fees for the services of the attorney and accountant, and authorization to distribute the net estate to the Nassau County Department of Social Services in full satisfaction of its claim in the amount of $177,020.06 against the decedent’s estate. In addition, the court must release the administrator from the surety bond.

The issue in this case is whether the attorney’s fee should be granted by the court.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, in this estate, there are two separate proceedings to fix legal fees. In the first, the executor, the decedent’s nephew, petitions to fix and determine the reasonable legal fee and disbursements to be awarded to his former counsel, at an amount less than the $14,200 in legal fees and $1,415.37 in disbursements billed and sought by the said counsel. The counsel cross petition for an order fixing his fees and disbursements in the billed amount. The second proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110, commenced by him, seeks an award of $9,590, including $340 in disbursements, for legal services rendered to a former client, the decedent’s daughter-in-law. The latter opposes the petition and cross-petitions to fix and determine his reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements contending, inter alia, that the legal fees, to the extent valid, should be borne by the estate. The parties agreed to submit the issues in each proceeding on the papers, without a hearing.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, the decedent died on August 4, 2006. Letters testamentary issued on October 30, 2006. The decedent’s daughter-in-law and the decedent’s two grandchildren, the decedent’s only distributees, each receive one-third of the residuary estate. The share of each grandchild is to be held in trust until that grandchild reaches the age of 30 years. Although the counsel’s representation of the executor in connection with this estate commenced on or about August 11, 2006 upon the filing of the petition for letters testamentary, the executor did not execute a retainer agreement, setting an hourly rate of $250, until January 14, 2007. The probate petition indicated that the estate consisted of personal property valued at $137,000 and certain Bronx realty valued at $500,000. Thereafter, the executor filed an affidavit increasing the value of the personal property to $154,360.56 and the realty to $569,000.

A Bronx Estate Administration Lawyer said that, the counsel’s legal bills reveal that as of the date of the filing of the probate petition, he was in possession of a deed of the Bronx realty which was executed by the decedent on May 21, 2000, over six years prior to her death. The deed conveyed the realty to the decedent’s daughter-in-law while reserving to the decedent a life estate. Upon learning of the decedent’s death, the attorney who prepared and oversaw the execution of the deed provided it to him, who included the value of the realty in the probate petition. Following the admission of the will to probate, the executor and the counsel began collecting assets; in particular, they sought a date of death appraisal of the Bronx realty and personal property contained therein, and contacted brokers in order to sell the realty. The counsel’s bill reflects his involvement in meetings at the Bronx realty with the executor and appraisers, in obtaining brokers and receiving proposals from interested buyers and in drafting contracts of sale, although no closing ever occurred. During this time, it appears that disputes arose between the executor and the decedent’s daughter-in-law or her children concerning the sale of certain personal property, and the sales price of the Bronx realty. In addition, when the decedent’s granddaughter reached the age of 30, she requested through her mother a $10,000 distribution and, in response, the executor sent $6,000 instead of the $10,000 requested. These events prompted a January 3, 2008 letter from the counsel to the executor stating, inter alia, that he concurred with her recent rejection of an offer on the Bronx realty, and the executor should issue a check in the requested amount to the granddaughter and provide him and her with an accounting and cancelled checks for all expenses.

This action stems from plaintiff’s attempt to purchase certain real property, located at Bronx County (“subject property”), in August 2005, from four members of a family.

New York Probate Lawyers said one of the members, a lady, died testate in February 1986. Under the terms of her Will, her husband had a life interest in certain properties, but not the subject property, only access to its garage. Article Sixth of the Last Will and Testament provided that their son had a life income interest in the subject property which was to be held in Trust by Trustees. The son’s daughters were allowed to occupy the first floor and second floor, respectively, and, upon the son’s death, the subject property was to be transferred jointly to the daughters, decedent’s granddaughters. The Will also provided that, upon the husband’s death, the son would substitute as Co-Executor and Co-Trustee in his place. The other Co-Executor and Co-Trustee attorney was never a party to the sale of the subject property. Further, the husband and the lawyer never obtained Letters of Co-Trusteeship for the Article Sixth Trust, and only the husband took action as an unauthorized Trustee with regards to the subject property.

A Bronx Conty Probate attorney said that Probate Petition and Notice of Probate were filed with the Surrogate’s Court in April 1988, naming the husband and the lawyer as Co-Executors and Co-Trustees. It also requested that Letters of Testamentary be issued to them and that Letters of Trusteeship be issued to them under the Article Third and to the lawyer under the Article Eleventh. Thereafter, the Surrogate’s Court issued Letters of Co-Testamentary and Co-Trusteeship to the Petitioners. However, the Letters of Trusteeship were limited to Articles Third and Eleventh Trusts. The Surrogate’s Court provided a letter to the GAL stating that no application for Letters of Trusteeship was issued under Article Sixth of the Will.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, the decedent, died on January 4, 2006, survived by two children, the petitioners herein. A purported will dated July 16, 2003 and codicils dated September 29, 2004 and April 5, 2005 (herein collectively referred to as the “purported will”) have been offered for probate by respondents who are nominated as executors thereunder. By order dated April 5, 2006, A New preliminary letters testamentary issued to respondents. The purported will bequeaths the residuary estate to The Sunshine Foundation. The Sunshine Foundation is a charitable organization which was founded by the decedent during her lifetime. The preliminary executors are also the trustees of The Sunshine Foundation.

A Nassau Estate Administration Lawyer said that, at the time of her death, the decedent owned a 1% general partnership interest and a 50% limited partnership interest in Hewlett Associates. Article TENTH of the purported will provides as follows with respect to the decedent’s limited partnership interest in Hewlett Associates: “TENTH: If at the time of my death I own a limited partnership interest in Hewlett Associates, I direct that as soon after my death as may be practicable, my Executors (subject to the terms and conditions of the Partnership Agreement of Hewlett Associates) shall offer in writing (the “Offer”) to each of my children, the option to purchase for cash up to one-half (½) of said limited partnership interest that I may own at my death, at its value as finally fixed and determined for federal estate tax purposes after independent appraisal. If either such child desires to exercise his or her option to purchase said limited partnership interest, he or she shall notify the Executors in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Offer that he or she exercises his or her option to purchase said limited partnership interest. The closing of the purchase of said limited interest shall occur within sixty (60) days after the date of the Offer at a place designated by the Executors. If either of my said children shall not exercise his or her option to purchase all of his or her portion of said limited partnership interest, the other child may purchase the remaining portion, subject to the same terms and conditions set forth in this Article TENTH hereof.”

A Westchester County Will Lawyer said the decedent also created a revocable trust, under an agreement dated July 16, 2003, between herself as grantor and herself, respondents, as trustees. The trust provides that upon the grantor’s death, the remaining trust principal is to be paid over to The Sunshine Foundation. The decedent’s husband, died on May 4, 1990, leaving a will dated May 26, 1982, which was admitted to probate by this court on May 29, 1990. Under Article THIRD of the decedent’s husband will, a marital deduction trust was created for the benefit of his wife.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, in this probate proceeding, the decedent was survived by her husband and her three adult children. The propounded instrument nominates all three sons as co-executors and bequeaths the entire estate to them, to the exclusion of her husband. The decedent’s husband is a person under disability and a guardian ad litem was appointed to represent his interests in this proceeding. Although no objections were filed, settlement negotiations between the guardian ad litem and the three brothers proceeded for some time without success. Ultimately, the guardian ad litem filed his report wherein he indicates that he has no objection to the will’s admission to probate, but seeks the court’s permission to file a notice of election on behalf of his ward. He also opines that due to the hostility displayed by the brothers against one another, the best interests of the estate administration would be served by the appointment of an independent party to administer the estate.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, the third son has not filed any objection to the recommendations made by the guardian ad litem. The court notes that he has been living in the decedent’s former residence at least since the time of the decedent’s death, and by his own admission has been living there without either heat or electricity for many months. His suitability as a fiduciary is therefore greatly suspect.

A Westchester County Probate Lawyers said that, the first son, an attorney, has filed objections to the report of the guardian ad litem in which he threatens to immediately commence a Supreme Court action to block the appointment of an independent fiduciary, asserting he will “not stand idly by while some two-bit money hungry shyster is appointed to serve as Executor instead of your affirmant and/or your brothers’.” He also threatens to move for a change of venue, fearing a conspiracy exists between the court and the second son’s attorney based on the fact that the latter’s attorney, as a law student, served as an intern in this court during the summer of 1996. The court also notes that at the last conference on July 21, 2010, the first son had to be removed from the court’s conference room by a court officer because of his extremely abusive and hostile manner directed toward his siblings and the second son’s attorney.

Continue reading

A New York Probate Lawyer this is an action to vacate a deed or, in the alternative, impress a constructive trust, which was originally commenced by RM, as executor of the estate of MM, in the Supreme Court of Nassau County. The proceeding was later on transferred to the court at bar by order dated 21 October 2005.

RM moved for summary judgment and the respondent, CS, cross-moved for summary judgment for a declaration that the transfer was a valid gift.

The particular events that took place are detailed below.

Continue reading

A New York Probate Lawyer said this probate proceeding, objectant moves for an order disqualifying counsel, the petitioner and nominated executor under the will of the decedent. The lawyer crossmoves for sanctions on for making a frivolous motion.

A New York Will Lawyer said that the motion was brought in connection with the contested probate of an instrument. The decedent died in January 2007, survived by three children. A petition for probate was filed and an SCPA 1404 examination was conducted. Objections were subsequently filed by herein objectant. In connection with the depositions and objections, the lawyer, the nominated executor, is represented by of counsel t. Depositions were concluded thereafter.

The motion for disqualification arises out of legal representation of the Company, which has four shareholders who each own 25% of the corporation. The shareholders are objectant, her husband, her brother, and brother’s wife. In 2000, the company commenced two actions one of which, against the brother, remains open. The company is now in bankruptcy proceedings. Objectant seeks disqualification as counsel to executor in the probate proceeding on the grounds that they cannot represent executor, whose interests are adverse to the interests of its former client, objectant.

A New York Probate Lawyer said a woman died at the age of 91 and was survived by five nieces and nephews, who are the children of her two predeceased brothers. She left no other successor.

The daughter of the woman’s niece offered for probate a document as the woman’s last will and testament. The four other successors also filed waivers and consents to the probate of the proposed document. Preliminary letters testamentary were then issued.

A New York Will Lawyer said the witnesses of the document were subsequently examined. The first witness is also the attorney-draftsman of the proposed document. Afterward, the other grandniece filed an objection to the probate and demand for a jury trial.

Continue reading