Manhattan

Published on: February 15, 2012

Court Rules on Joint Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple executed a Joint Will that will make whoever is the survivor among them as the one to be given the entire property whether own individually or several and be the executor of the irrevocable Joint Will. The Joint Will further provided that whatever remained after the death of the survivor would be distributed to a trust, with equal shares of the trust to be allocated among their grandchildren and one of their children, their daughter. The Joint Will’s terms state that it is forever binding, and may be revoked or modified only by a writing subscribed by both parties and executed with the formality of a Will.

Approximately 8 years after the execution of the Joint Will and after approximately 50 years of marriage, the couple was divorced by judgment dated April 6, 2001. Several months before, apparently in anticipation of the divorce, the couple reaffirmed the Joint Will by executing a Marital Settlement Agreement, the terms of which were incorporated into the divorce judgment. The agreement stated, in pertinent part, that neither party would attempt to revoke the Joint Will, and provided quit claim deeds granting sole title of their condominium to the husband and sole title of their other condominium to the Wife. No further action was taken by either the Wife or the husband regarding the Joint Will.

In 2006, the Wife established her 2006 Irrevocable Trust, the body of which was her condominium. The Wife and her son-in-law were named as the trustees.

Published on: February 12, 2012

Court Rules on Probate Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A rich man died leaving several properties in Central America and two States in the U.S. Almost two and one-half years later, a petition was filed in the court of a U.S. State by the Country of the deceased man for the order which is alleged to have been destroyed after the man’s death. That petition contains the further allegation that the man was, at the time of his death, a resident of the Country from Central America. The petition was amended in which the petitioner set forth transactions and proceedings with U.S. State Tax Commission wherein the petitioner was advised of the Commission’s disagreement that the man had been a resident of the U.S. State. According to a New York Probate Lawyer, the petition was thereupon amended to read that the man, at the time of his death, was either a resident of the U.S. State or a resident of the Country from Central America.

The petition against the U.S. State was to dismiss their petition for the probate of the will on the grounds that the involved U.S. State court has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding and if it has jurisdiction, that it should decline, in its discretion, to exercise it. The Petitioner Country requests a hearing on the matter of the deceased person’s residence and the location of his property.

Tax Law requires that in every proceeding for original letters appointed by in the estate of a non-resident deceased person, the State Tax Commission must be cited as a necessary party. The section contains other provisions to protect the State’s interest with respect to the collection of any tax that might be payable. The petition herein having been amended so as to leave open the question of the man’s residence, the State Tax Commission is taking no active part in the process of the proceeding. It is obvious, therefore, that the amendment of the petition represents not so much a change of mind on petitioner’s part but rather an effort to avoid at this time unnecessary legal action.

Published on: February 9, 2012

Court Rules on Use of Emmy Trademark

by Stephen Bilkis

The very popular Emmy is a trademark shared National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Before, these two entities were on under Television Academy of Arts & Sciences, this was in 1946. In the 1950’s they separated because of differences. New York Probate Lawyers say that around the 1977, the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS) and Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (ATAS) entered in a settlement agreement to resolve differences in each group’s right with the use of the Emmy trademark and the related litigation.

NATAS got among other things the exclusive right to conduct one annual award and show per year for national daytime programming (TV shows from 2:00 am to 6:00 pm), national sports programming, national news and documentary programming. ATAS got the exclusive right for the award for night time TV shows (TV shows from 6:00 pm to 2:00 am). The agreement also provides that they will need each other’s consent before creating any new national awards, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. A Manhattan Probate Lawyer found out that the agreement is if the other party feels that the consent was reasonably withheld, then they can resort to an intercession.

NATAS announced that they would be starting to award new Emmys to recognize “new media”. The announcement was made November 2005. The “new media” included Broadband video programming broadcasted over the internet. ATAS was not asked for their consent before NATAS announced the new awards. They as well announced that they will be awarding Emmys in Drama, Comedy, Children’s and Variety for Daytime Broadband. Part of the revelation was a “My Space/ My Emmy” contest, which will be for advanced media awards like video games and other technologies. NATAS had denoted that it will be awarding all entertainment programming on broadband media regardless of the time it was distributed. The awards were scheduled to be given away in June.

Published on: February 7, 2012

Public Assisstance Recipients File Claim Against the State

by Stephen Bilkis

The public assistance recipients who had been classified as employable with limitations had a filed an instant law suit against the City administration and the State. The people were classified as such because of the medical problems that they have. Their allegation was that the City administration often puts them in jobs that are not compatible with their disabilities. The plaintiffs who have been assigned to the Work Experience Program (WEP) state that aside from the incompatible jobs, the State has failed to supervise the program under the Social Services law.

New York Probate Lawyers found out that the court has found that the plaintiffs had raised a serious fairness issue and could be entitled to a Writ of Mandamus that requires a government agency to do something that they should by law. It can also be a writ of prohibition, which will prohibit a government agency, even a judge, from doing something that they should not. Or it can also be a Mandamus Review, where a decision of a public agency is reversed.

According to the social services law, in exchange for welfare benefits, the aid recipients need to perform WEP assignments, unless the recipients are exempted due to physical or mental disabilities. The city’s medical contractor determines if they are E-I or employable, E-II or employable with limitations, E-III or temporarily disabled, or E-IV which is permanently disabled, according to a Manhattan Probate Lawyer said. People classified as E-II should still work but will be assigned jobs compatible with their disability.

Published on: February 4, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

A proponent of the will of Lina G. Shapiro, petitioned the court at the foot a probate decree to charge the person objecting to the will personally. The probate decree allows this application to be made after the decree has been final.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that when a person files an objection to a last will and testament in good faith and with reasonable grounds, he is entitled to have his protest investigated without him bearing the cost. There was a previous case whereby the Appellate Court reversed a decision of a surrogate court for an objectant to be charged personally because there was some evidence that supported his objection to the lack of testamentary capacity and to negative bad faith. This was in the Coddington will.

Good faith is mainly reliant on whether there is a considerable basis for a will contest. The court cited some examples, like with the Kurowski’s will, where the court charge the cost of the contest personally to the objectant because she had a sworn data that validates the will she is contesting. The Roger’s estate was mentioned because the court assigned the cost to the person who contested because there was no evidence to support his claim. This is not the sole basis for imposing the cost to an unsuccessful contestant.

Published on: February 1, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

In the matter of Mary Cairo’s will, a question has been raised whether Joseph L. Cairo her grandson has the right to raise a dispute against the terms for the distribution of the will. The decedent named three different charities as the beneficiary of the remaining part of her estate. This is after her sister, Elizabeth Jennings, gets her cooperative house and all its furnishings, including personal property. In the will, according to a New York Probate Lawyer, she says that if her sister dies before her then her share will also be divided equally between the three charities. The sixth article of the will specifically said “I make no bequest to my grandson, Joseph L. Cairo, and I make no bequests to my daughters-in-law, Antoinette Cairo and Audrey Cario, for good and sufficient reason.”

That in the interpretation of a will, the first rule that the court follows is to determine the actual intention of the decedent. The second rule is to establish such an intent from will as a whole and not just part. The will undisputedly show that Mary Cairo wanted to leave the bulk of her estate to charity. Not only with the bequest but even with the provision that if her sister predeceased her, the bequest to her sister will go to the charities. To make it clear, she even named Joseph L. Cairo and others in her will and stated she is not giving them anything.

This was the basis for Joseph L. Cairo’s argument that he has the right to contest the bequest to charity. He says that since he was specifically mentioned then he has the right. Manhattan Probate Lawyers said that by law there are qualifications that must be met to determine a person’s right to contest a bequest to charity. The first is if the gift is more than one-half of the residuary estate. It can only be objected to by people who stand to benefit from a successful contest. This is where the intent of the decedent’s intention comes in. In her will, she showed that she did not want Joseph Cairo to have any part of her will. She wanted her estate to go to her sister and charity. The courts declaring that if they allow Joseph Cairo to contest, then it will be like saying it is possible for him to get something from the estate which is not what Mary Cairo wanted. IT is the court’s decision that Joseph Cairo does not have standing to contest the will as to the disposition to charity. He is also charged $10 personally.

Published on: January 30, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

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 to file a will contest 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. A New York Probate Lawyer said that 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 26, 2012

Estate of Julia Eckart

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 a Manhattan Probate Lawyer, 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 the desk of a Nassau County Probate Lawyer said 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: 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 24, 2012

Court Rules on Excessive Gifts to Charity

by Stephen Bilkis

The decedent executed a will that left all her estate after taxes and fees to a Cemetery Association, a Fire Company, The American Cancer Society, a health association, and a society for the protection of homeless and dependent children. This constituted more than half of her estate.

If in case the will fails, a New York Probate Lawyer said that there will be twenty-nine first cousins who will be the beneficiaries. Three of these first cousins objected to the bequest to the charities. They cited law regarding the will contest for excessive bequests to charities. If their petition is granted any excess to half of the estate will be distributed to the cousins. The executors and the five charities appealed to dismiss the objection. The cousins objecting appeared before the court one with his separate counsel and the other two shared the same attorney.

To understand the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law regarding the excessive bequest to charity, one needs to determine first who can contest. The rule on contesting an excessive bequest to charity is that the person who is appealing against stands to gain pecuniary with a successful contest and that the bequest to charity is more than half of the estate. The law further supports it with the definition as to who these persons.