Bronx

Published on: May 26, 2012

Court Decides if Public Administrator Can Serve

by Stephen Bilkis

The case is a matter of judicial settlement regarding the proceedings of Ellis T. Terry, who is the administrator of the credits, chattels, and goods that belonged to Christian Krabbe, who is the deceased. The case is being heard in the Surrogates Court of Suffolk County.

Proceeding

This proceeding involves Ellis T. Terry, who was the Public Administrator for Suffolk County. A New York Probate Lawyer said the case deals with a judicial settlement for his accounts as the administrator of the estate. This includes judicial determination of the identity of the distributees of the decedent and a judicial determination in respect to certain claims that have been made. He is also seeking authorization for the sale of real property owned by the decedent.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Peittioner Challenges Jurisdiction of Probate Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a probate case involving the last will and testament of Daniel Joseph Roach. The case is being heard in the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County in the state of New York. The petitioner and proponent in the case is Mary A. Hennessy. She is represented by Joseph L. Callahan. The respondent in the case is Daniel Joseph Roach Jr. He is represented by the law firm of Fennelly & Fennelly from New York City.

The respondent in this case, Daniel J. Roach Jr. is appearing especially in front of this court to challenge the jurisdiction in regard to the probate proceeding of the decedent, Daniel Joseph Roach. The respondent states that at the time of his death, Daniel Joseph Roach was a resident of Kings County and therefore the probate should be held in the Kings County Surrogate Court.

Facts of the Case

Published on: May 21, 2012

Court Interpretes Zoning Ordinance

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainant operates a manufactured home park on real estate he owns in a residential zone in Chemung County. Residents of the park place manufactured homes on lots leased from the complainant. A New York Probate Lawyer said in 2009, the complainant’s estate administration manager approached the accused, the Town Enforcement Officer, to inquire about obtaining a building permit to install a manufactured home owned by the complainant on a lot in the park to be offered for sale to the public. The accused Town Enforcement Officer advised the complainant that the proposal was a commercial use prohibited by the Town Zoning Code. The complainant then applied to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation of the ordinance. After a public hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the complainant’s proposed use was prohibited. The complainant commenced the proceeding to annul the determination and Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The complainant appealed.

The Town Zoning Code defines a manufactured home park as a parcel of land under single ownership which is improved for the placement of mobile homes and manufactured homes for non-transient use and which is offered to the public of two or more mobile and manufactured homes. In a provision entitled Commercial Sale of Mobile and Manufactured Homes, the zoning ordinance provides that a mobile and manufactured home park shall be established for the purpose of permitting habitation of such mobile or manufactured homes. Bronx Probate Lawyers said no sales lot or area shall be used for the purpose of selling mobile or manufactured homes. Relying upon the emphasized language, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that the complainant’s proposal to place an unoccupied manufactured home on a lot for sale would have the effect of transforming the said residential lot into a dedicated lot or area for the commercial sale of a mobile home and was an illegal commercial sale of a mobile home within a residential district. The Zoning Board of Appeals further distinguished the complainant’s proposal from sales of mobile homes by individual owners in anticipation of moving and finding that such casual sales did not violate the ordinance but nonetheless would have to be monitored on a case by case basis.

The Supreme Court accorded deference to the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but that heightened standard was not merited. Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said a fact-based interpretation of a zoning ordinance that determines its application to a particular use of property is entitled to great deference. However, deference is not required when reviewing a pure legal interpretation of terms in an ordinance. The meaning of the term sales lot or area in the ordinance at issue presents a purely legal question in which no deference to the Zoning Board of Appeal’s interpretation is required.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Lawyer Removes Himself from Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case Leslie Lerman and Lois Lerman were both plaintiff-s appellants. Summerhill Estates, Inc., Michele A. Keagle, Allen M. Robinson, Marleen L. Robinson and Adam C. Robinson are the defendants. Cayuga County is a defendant-respondent.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer said the representation for the appellants put forward a motion which requested that the appellants be given more time to perfect an appeal. The appeal referred to is from an order of the Supreme Court. It was originally logged in the County of Cayuga Clerk’s Office on July 1, 2011. The representation also asked for permission to remove themselves as the legal counsel of the appellants.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Decides Real Property Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Roxrun Estates, Inc. et al, are the respondents-appellants, and the Roxbury Run Village Association, Inc et al., is the other appellant-respondent and defendants.

Background

A New York Probate Lawyer said in 1972, Roxbury Run Corporation proposed to build a 500-unit townhouse development in Delaware County. A declaration was drawn up which laid out the rights and responsibilities of the owners who would purchase units in the development, as well as the property owners’ association. The Roxbury Run Village Association was created for the express purpose of building and looking after the various common areas, including recreational areas, which would be utilized by the members of the development. Two types of members were included in the association. Class A were owners of improved property. Class A members received a vote for every improved unit. Roxbury Run, on the other hand, was entitled to three votes as a Class B member for every property they owned. By December of 1979, all Class B memberships were to cease, after an amendment was made to the original agreement moving that date back from 1982.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Discusses Estate Taxes

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the estate of Mr. Frank Wolf. The petitioner is the administrator of the estate, Betsy Wolf. Ethel Wolf is the respondent.

The Estate

A New York Probate Lawyer said the case involves the will of Mr. Wolf. Most of his property was left to his mother, while nothing appeared allocated for his wife. There was also no mention of estate taxes.

Published on: April 26, 2012

Court Rules on Validity of Multiple Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman has petitioned the court to vacate the probate of a will of a deceased person whom she is not related to and to permit her to file objections to the validation. The deceased man’s will was admitted to validation by the court and the estate was distributed in April, 2006.

According to records, answers and objections to her petition were filed by the executor, a grandson of the decedent, and two other grandchildren. Following a conference with the court, the parties attempted to reach a settlement, but were unsuccessful. A New York Probate Lawyer said that thereafter the matter was submitted to the court for a decision on the papers, including a reply and an additional affidavit in support of the petition.

The Petitioner raises several arguments in support of the relief requested. Primarily that she is in possession of a later will, in which she is named executor and a beneficiary. She states that she was neither cited nor waived citation in the proceeding which granted validation to the 1992 will, and that she intends to file objections to the validation based on the later will. She also alleges that the deceased, who died while an inpatient at a nursing home in New Jersey, was a resident of Manhattan, and not of Rockland County as alleged in the petition which resulted in the validation decree, and that, therefore, the proceeding should not have been brought in this court. The Petitioner filed the purported will in this court and filed her petition to vacate validation. The respondents, by their answer and objections, allege that the petition should be denied because the petitioner is guilty of laches, based on her unexplained and unjustified delay in offering the purported later will for validation and in bringing the instant proceeding, which will result in substantial prejudice to them if she is successful. They further argue that petitioner is unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, because the 2001 purported will is not likely to be admitted to validation. They maintain that the 2001 document is suspicious on its face, that the deceased lacked sufficient capacity to execute a will in 2001 and that the 2001 document was the product of undue influence.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Determines Which Will to Submit to Probate

by Stephen Bilkis

The guardian of the decedent’s estate has filed for a petition and requested the court to allow the probate of the alleged will. The petition also contained that a fee should be established by the court.

The testator of the will and testament has passed away. He left his wife and 3 children his estate. The widow was named the guardian as stated in the decedent’s will. The widow at that time is afflicted with dementia. The two older sons of the testator were also named as co-guardians for their mother.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the two sons requested a probate of a specific will. A few months later, they filed another probate on another will and requested that the previous motion be denied by the court.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Guardian Charged with Gross Negligence

by Stephen Bilkis

A guardian for an old man is accused of gross negligence, malpractice, inaction, unlawful and breach of authority relationship regarding his conduct and/or lack thereof in exercising a certain right of election on the old man’s behalf against the last will and testament of his deceased son.

The claim for compensatory and disciplinary damages results, allegedly, from the defendant’s failure as guardian of the father to have taken steps necessary to have enabled his ward to exercise his personal right of election against an excessive testamentary gift for educational purposes. While this probate proceeding concerned the will of the son who died, the facts herein involved concern the estates of three deceased because, as will appear more fully below, soon after the son died, the mother died and shortly thereafter, the father died.

Under the son’s will, the father, at the time of the son’s death, then over 90 years of age, was one of the son’s two beneficiaries, the other being the mother. The petition for validation of the son’s will was later amended to describe the father as being then a person under disability because he was incapable of managing his own affairs and a request made, in view thereof, for the appointment of a guardian to protect the father’s interests in his son’s estate. By order the then Surrogate appointed the defendant as guardian for the father in the validation proceeding of the son’s will. Parenthetically, the defendant was a long-time friend of the family. In the proceeding, the mother was separately represented by independent counsel.

Published on: April 20, 2012

Will is Contested Based on Lack of Capacity of Decedent

by Stephen Bilkis

An 87 year old deceased rich man who was never married and had no children had invested wisely and left a non-specific estate of over $7,000,000. His latest will executed left his residuary estate in equal shares to his sister, his brother, two children of his predeceased brother and his sister’s three children — the eldest son, the younger son and a daughter. His sister was named as executor however she died before her brother. His sister’s younger son is the successor executor. His nephew filed a petition to validate the 1988 will and was appointed as preliminary executor. Objections were filed by the deceased man’s brother and the two children of his predeceased brother. The objections alleged lack of authority capacity, fraud and undue influence.

In January, 1989, he was taken to a clinic after becoming dizzy and falling. In April, 1989, he had a stroke. He was seen by the doctors at his clinic, who documented the deterioration of his mental condition. In January, 1990, he established a trust for his sister and her children and ultimately transferred over $1,500,000 to it. In December, 1990, he was found wandering in the Bus Terminal. The nephew arrived at the terminal and returned his uncle to his apartment. However, he was soon discovered walking outside his apartment in his underwear. he police took him to a hospital, where tests showed organic brain syndrome of the Alzheimer’s type. He was placed in the Nursing Home for Adults, an adult care facility. Queens Probate Lawyers said he was hospitalized again where he was diagnosed as having advanced dementia and atrophy of the brain. He was discharged to an adult health care center. The other nephew brought a proceeding to be appointed his uncle’s conservator. He and another uncle were appointed as co-conservators. The rich man’s brother arranged for his brother to be transferred to a facility in California, where he died a few days later.

The objections to probate were tried before the Surrogate in a non-jury trial. The trial lasted nine days and was vigorously challenged. Based on the record, the Court found that the deceased rich man lacked the ability to execute a will in 1988. It further found that he was susceptible to undue influence due to his weakened physical condition, that his sister’s relationship with him was motivated by her interest in his money. It is further found that there was a confidential relationship between him and his sister created by her control over his finances. Critical to the finding that his sister had actually exercised undue influence over him in the will contest were the findings made by the Court that prior to 1986, he had given only small gifts to family members but that after his sister began to exert influence over him, he transferred almost $2,000,000 to trusts for the benefit of her children and that she signed checks to each of her children from an account he established. The nephew does not dispute receiving the money, but argues that he had no knowledge of any impropriety.