Bronx

Published on: February 13, 2012

Court Decision on Complex Probate Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellants of a probate case have filed for an objection against the original ruling of probate by the court. The court did not accept the objections of the appellants.

According to the objections of the appellants, they asserted that the surrogate court should have used its authority to decide on the matter of estate’s original probate due to the fact that another court already had previous jurisdiction over it. The appellants further argue that the original order for probate had already been settled in a foreign country. Such foreign proceeding was concluded by the court as possibly replicated in the city.

The decedent’s will was executed in the city in which the decedent, also known as the testator, has lived. That will and testament revokes all the previous wills that have been written by the testator. The will contains instructions on the funeral expenses and debt payments. The remaining assets after the previous expenses are deducted shall be awarded to the former wife of the testator and another party. The male respondent of this court proceeding was identified as the executor of the will.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Probate Lawyer, this is a case about the estate of Bertha Weil Fitzgerald. Reports that reached his office said that the estate was left to a number of charitable institutions and couple of churches according to her will. These charities and churches are Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York, National Society for Prevention of Blindness, Inc., The Fresh Air Fund, First National City Bank as Committee of the Property of Paul S. Ames, Jr., Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Archbishopric of New York and for Terence Cardinal Cooke, The Salvation Army, Heart Fund, American Cancer Society Inc., and the New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center.

According to the Will that was executed in 1970, all of these charities and churches shall receive each an amount of $50,000. The Fitzgerald Estate was valued at $2 million. The remainder of the estate shall be given to the Archbishopric of New York. However, Bertha Weil Fitzgerald had a 41 year old son who was legally entitled to the estate of his deceased mother. It was also said on the Will that Bertha did not intend to leave any amount or any part of her estate to her son, who was also invalid and incompetent. The son according to reports had been institutionalized since childhood and therefore was under no condition to care for himself much less to her mother’s estate. It was also noted that the grandmother, Bertha’s mother already left half a million dollars to her grandson when she passed away some years back.

This case was filed by the trust company of Bertha’s son claiming that the son, under their representation did not receive any notice about the Will of Bertha. They claim that the son was not able to file an objection to his mother’s last will and testament and that it was right to do so. It was also noted that by law an incompetent spouse or in this case a son can file for an objection if he or she was left with a sum leas than or not equal to the sum that were left to other beneficiaries in this churches and charitable institutions. It is also what is known as a case of excessive or too much charity.

Published on: February 9, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case regarding the Estate of Julia Eckart and the claims of her children regarding each of their shares in the inheritance. According to reports given to a New York Probate Lawyer, the children of the deceased filed a case against the last will and testament of their mother because of the insufficiency of their inherited amount against that of which will go to other people, entities and charities.

Unbelievably, according to Brooklyn Probate Lawyers, Julia Eckart left each of her children the amount of $50 each. According to her will, she also left no other cash or property to the rest of her surviving relatives. That is why the surviving children, Charlotte Anna Eckart, Frank Darmody and Frank Darmody filed a case in court that says that their mother made an excessive contribution to charity and that they were left with nothing except for the $50 each that were provided to them by her last will and testament. The rest of Julia Eckart’s estate, including her real and personal property have been assigned to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, which is a non-profit corporation in Brooklyn, New York.

Reports that reached Bronx Probate Lawyers, the court thoroughly examined the case according to the petition filed by the children. There was also a similar case before when a grandson was expressly disinherited on the will that was left by his grandfather. This was the Cairo case which was a long and hardly fought battle in court which now became a source of other similar cases as well. But according to the court, there should be two elements present in a case before it can be ruled as excessive charity. First, there should really be the intension to give too much of her estate to charity. Second, there is the intention to disinherit immediate family members like the spouse or children by the one executing the last Will and testament.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

August 13, 1970, Julia Eckhart died leaving two children, Charlotte Eckart and Frank Darmody. In her will that was dated August 4, 1966, she left each of them the sum of $50 and the rest to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. The will was admitted to probate and daughter, Ms. Eckart and Mr. Darmody submitted intent to contest the will. This is because of the size of the estate distributed by the will. New York Probate Lawyers say that in the Estates, Power and Trusts Law, gifts to a charitable institution should not be more than half of the estate if contested by a descendant or parent. The law further states that the person can only contest if they are to receive a monetary benefit if the contest is successful as the beneficiary of the will.

Being the children of the deceased is not questionable. What needs to be decided on is if they have the right because they will receive a pecuniary benefit. The executor’s point of view was that the children did not have the right as the will expressed that Mrs. Eckhart, the deceased, did not want to give her children more than the $50, she provided for each of them. He relied on the case of Joseph Cairo as an example. The Cairo case, a Staten Island Probate Lawyer states, had the specific words that said that the deceased did not wish to give the grandson, Joseph Cairo, anything from the estate. The grandson was not going to benefit from a successful contest.

In this matter, the deceased placed her relatives in different levels as her children got $50 inheritance while the others did not. There was nothing that specifically or expressly stated she wished they do not receive anything more than the $50, she had appropriated in her will. The $50 in this case is insignificant. It does not show the intent of the testatrix if she wished to take away inheritance from her children. The law takes out intention with its provision. It keeps only what is stated in the will.

Published on: February 3, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

In the mater of the last will and testament of Clara Louise Bonesteel, a petition was filed with the Appellate Court with in relation to the decision made in a jury trial. The last will and testament was disputed as not being a valid will for the decedent. The jury found that the last will and testament is legitimate and said that it can be entered into probate.

The case that is filed with the court is with regard to the challengers of the will to be able to get a copy of the stenographic minutes of the trial at the expense of the estate. The law states that a copy of the stenographer’s minutes may be supplied to the contestant and charged to the expense of the estate if they can determine that the contest was made in good faith. It does not matter if the contest was successful or unsuccessful as long as it was made in good faith. In the case of Byron’s will, the court decided that good faith is not to be established before the contest as it will promote prolonged trials because the person contesting the will is assured that the costs will be shouldered by the decedent’s estate. To determine good faith after the trial is a way to ensure that the contest is already in good faith because one will bear the cost otherwise.

In law, there is also a rule of stare decisis. This states that any court lower than the Appellate Court should follow the decision made already by the Appellate Court with regard to the same issues. This applies to other judges even if not from a lower court, but of course not a higher one. In the case regarding Harned’s will, the Surrogate Wingate of Kings County followed the decision of the Appellate Division of the First Department, there was no differing decision from his own Appellate Division in his department. A New York Probate Lawyer mentioned that the decisions of other Special Terms are not controlling. The judge at special term has the duty to follow a decision made by the Appellate Court of another division pending the decision of his own Appellate Division of the Court of Appeals offers a different ruling.

Published on: January 31, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

With an Estate amounting to almost two million dollars, E. Louise Grupp died in September 25, 1992. The will that was given for probate was only dated two weeks before Mr. Grupp died. The will was dated September 11, 1992. The executors who wear named in the will were Joan E. Maloney, Esq., and Eleanor G. Dunn. There was an older will filed with the court that was dated July 9, 1992. Interested parties had examined the witnesses to the will.

The will dated September 11, 1992 sets up the $300,000 trust for Ms. Nitterauer and places another $150,000 in trust for her sons. Aside from that she gets personal effects and the testator’s house. From what Brooklyn Probate Lawyers gathered, the remaining part of the estate of the deceased goes to the Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company as trustee for the Buffalo Foundation to be held as a perpetual charitable fund in memory of Mrs. Grupp and her late husband. Nine charities are assigned as income beneficiaries of fund assets in various percentages totaling 95% of net income, with the recipients of the remaining 5% to be selected by the Foundation. If the foundation fails to qualify as a charity or any of the other named organizations then the trustee will select from qualifying charities.

A terrorem clause was also in this will. That if anyone contests the probate or any part of the will, their interest will be forfeited, and it will be treated like that person died before the testator.

Published on: January 26, 2012

After Nicholas’ son died in March 31, 1971, the court-appointed Mr. McQuade

by Stephen Bilkis

Charles J. Tate, acting as the administrator of the estate of Nicholas C. Tate filed a case for gross negligence, malpractice, non-feasance, misfeasance, malfeasance and breach of fiduciary relationship against John J. McQuade as the guardian ad litem, or the court-appointed guardian of Nicholas’ interest with his son’s will. He is seeking money damages for money and also for punitive damages.

After Nicholas’ son died in March 31, 1971, the court-appointed Mr. McQuade as his guardian because of a disability and Mr. Tate was 90 years old at that time. As the administrator, Mr. Tate says that Mr. McQuade failed to contest the son’s will for excessive gift to charity. Whereby if successful would have increased Nicholas’ share in his son’s estate. The son left some personal property to his mother and the rest of the estate to the University of Detroit for educational purposes. This was dated and verified in September 16, 1971. The mother filed her objections to this will through her own counsel as an excessive gift.

The mother died while the probate for the son’s will was still on-going. Before she died, she had set up a trust for Nicholas her husband, and the rest was to be given to Mr. McQuade as the guardian ad litem. He was also named as the executor of the mother’s will. Though a lawyer, Mr. McQuade was not the one who drafted the mother’s will.

Published on: January 21, 2012

Court Rules on Will Contest between Siblings

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman died in June 1994. She left a last will and testament dated May, 25 1990. This will contain conditions in the bequest that favored her daughter. In the will, a New York Probate Lawyer said, it gave 50% of the remaining estate after taxes and fees to Mrs. Ellis daughter and the remainder is divided equally between her two sons. One would think it is unfair for the mother to do this, but with their history, you would understand why.

The previous will had the children sharing the estate equally, but after the woman’s husband died the sons’ relationship with their mother got worse and with her daughter better. There was even a letter sent by one son to his sister that accused her of scheming to distance the mother from her sons. This was in March 1980. He even went as far as demand to have the old will reinstated and that the mother should not help the daughter financially unless there is proof that she needs it. He stated in his letter that if his demand is granted, then he will not publicize the issue. The son threatened to file a court case if what he wants is not done. In an undated letter to his brother, he said the “estate would be in court so long that the daughter would never see any of the money.”

In May 1990, she executed the will submitted for probate. Aside from the provision she placed in favor of her daughter, she added that her will is based on the “loving care and attention” her daughter has showed her and her late husband, unlike the behavior their sons showed. She said the will is a product of a long and careful thought and was not because of undue influence from the daughter. Furthermore, in June 1993, she approached a new lawyer to draft a new will for her so that she could continue to express her desire to give the majority of her estate to the daughter. The information a Bronx Probate Lawyers gathered said she was afraid her sons will cause trouble for her daughter. This is when the terrorem clause was added wherein if any of the beneficiaries directly or indirectly contest the will or any of its conditions, their right to their share in the estate is revoked, and that share will be divided between the remaining parties who have not contested.

Published on: October 27, 2011

This is a case file by William Power Maloney

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case file by William Power Maloney against the estate of E. Townsend Irvin and against other people including the widow and other beneficiaries of the estate. It was determined in a report sent to a New York Estate Litigation Lawyer that Maloney served as counsel of lawyer for one of the beneficiaries, J. Gordon Douglas, who was also later named as executor of the estate. Much was discussed about this case because there were also other people involved in the estate like the Woodbury family.

Maloney was asking for the settlement of his legal fees because of the services he rendered to his client, J. Gordon Douglas. He was asking the court grants his petition and that he be paid for his services and that the payment should come from the Irvin estate. At that time, Maloney was asking to be paid the sum of $16,000. It was questioned by the court and by the other beneficiaries why such an amount be paid to him from the Irvin estate when in fact, according to them Maloney did not perform or rendered any services for the deceased or his estate.

It was also reported to a New York Estate lawyer that because of the longstanding arguments of the widow and the Woodbury family along with J. Gordon Douglas, the proceedings regarding the estate has taken so long already. Douglas, according to Maloney approached him and said that unless there is a compromised agreement between the widow and the Woodbury family, the trial could probably take longer than necessary. Maloney said that he worked with the disputing parties to come up with a settlement. According to him, the sum of $25,000 was agreed upon by the disputing parties that finally ended their objections and disputes. But it unknown to both parties that Maloney was working for them and the estate. They were under that impression that Maloney represented Douglas who was at that time was not yet named as executor of the estate.