Nassau

Published on: July 2, 2012

Court Holds Executrix was Negligent

by Stephen Bilkis

Two men were business partners. In 1925, one partner filed a suit to compel his business partner to account for the properties of the partnership in his keeping. The partner who sued contended that his business partner diverted the profits of their business.

While the suit for accounting was pending, the business partner died who was sued died. He left a will which was probated. An executrix was appointed in the will and approved by the probate court. A couple stood as sureties for the fiduciary bond of the executrix.

Soon, the surety also died and he also left a will which was admitted into probate. In 1932 the surety’s estate was settled.

Published on: June 28, 2012

Petitioners Request Letters of Administration

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman died on October 26, 2000. The alleged last will and testament was executed on March 23, 1995. Under the last will and testament, the woman left her estate to her two sisters, or the survivor. She named her elder sister as executor and the younger sister as successor. The elder sister predeceased the woman without issue. As a result, the entire estate was passed to the younger sister.

In 2005, the younger sister petitioned for the appointment of a guardian of her property. The court, finding that the younger sister had a history of poor judgment with regard to her real and personal property management, appointed the petitioners, a niece, and a friend, as guardians of the woman’s property.

A New York Probate Lawyer said in May, 2007, a judge authorized the petitioners to petition to probate the 1995 will. By this time, the original could not be located and the petitioners petitioned to probate a copy of the 1995 will as a lost will. The affidavit of the friend in support states that she located the copy among the woman’s important papers after her death. While the deceased woman must have had the original will, her house had been sold and the purchaser threw away all of the deceased woman’s papers. The affirmation of the deceased woman’s friend states that after the woman’s death, her home was taken over by her former handyman who threw away all of her papers.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Court Rules That Trust Acted as a Substitute Will

by Stephen Bilkis

A man created a living trust. A living trust is one where all the man’s assets are put in a trust with a bank or trust company and the income earned by his assets will be paid out to the man himself. The problem with this living trust the man created was that he bought the trust document in a pre-printed fill-in-the-blank form: he never went to a lawyer to have the lawyer create a trust document for him, tailor-cutting the provisions of the document so that it would fit his circumstances.

The trust he created came in a document that was sent to him in the three-ring-binder contained a Certificate of Trust, and Affidavit of Trust, a Living Will, a property power of attorney, a health care power of attorney and a copy of the man’s will which was stapled. The man can just cut out and paste those provisions that he didn’t like and keep the provisions that he did like and wished to retain. Glued to the ring binder is a sticker that showed the name and copyright of the lawyer who created the fill-in-the blank trust and will. The three-ring binder is part of an estate-planning product that also includes a seminar, a handbook and a computer software program which allows the person who purchased the portfolio to create a will and print it.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the living trust was created sometime on April 30, 1996. On the same date, the man also executed a will. The man’s will provided that all of the properties of his estate which were included in the living trust will be revoked upon his death and the entirety of his estate will pass on to his dear friend. This provision was later amended by the testator before his death on September 9, 1996. The amended provided that only 99.75 per cent of the entire estate under the living trust will be given to his dear friend and the remaining .25 will pass on to another friend.

Published on: June 20, 2012

Probate Court Discusses Cy Pres Doctrine

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 1 November 1995, a doctor (“the doctor”) died. On 8 July 1996, his will was admitted to probate (for estate administration or estate litigation). Under the will, the doctor bequeathed $3,500,000 to a hospital (“the Hospital”), to be held as the Endowment Fund in perpetuity, with the income only to be used for general purposes. This was in addition to the $1,000,000 that he and his wife gave the hospital for the same purpose in December of 1988. In addition, the doctor bequeathed 5% of his residuary estate (up to a maximum of $10 million) and one quarter of the balance of the residuary estate to the hospital. His will directed that these amounts be added to the Endowment Fund and administered under the conditions established under the will. The hospital received approximately $37,000,000 from the estate of the doctor dedicated to the Endowment Fund.

On 8 April 1998, the doctor’s wife (“the wife”) died. On 30 December 1998, her will was admitted to probate. Under the will, she bequeathed $4,000,000 to the same aforesaid hospital as the Endowment Fund, to be held either in perpetuity with the income to be used for general purposes, or in part or in whole for the construction or acquisition of a building to be called in their names. In addition, she left 20% of her residuary estate to the hospital, to be added to the Endowment Fund and administered under the conditions established under the will. A New York Probate Lawyer said the hospital received approximately $98,000,000 from the estate of the wife dedicated to the Endowment Fund.

Published on: June 11, 2012

Court Determines Subject Matter Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Sometime in 1936, plaintiff and his wife (the deceased), residents of Kings County, entered into an agreement to execute mutual reciprocal and irrevocable wills which neither of the parties was to alter, cancel or revoke without the written consent of the other. The wills were accordingly executed.

In 1954, the wife executed another will. In her will, she devised and bequeathed all her estate, both real and personal, to plaintiff husband.

Published on: May 6, 2012

Court Dismisses Appeal on Proceedural Grounds

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs and appellants in this case are Leslie Lerman and Lois Lerman. Summerhill Estates, Inc, Adam C. Robinson, Marleen L. Robinson, Allen M. Robinson, and Michele A. Keagle are the defendants of the case. Cayuga County is the defendant and respondent in the case.

A New York Probate Lawyer said this appeal case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the Appellate Division. The judges overseeing the case are P. J. Smith, Scudder, Fahey, Centra, and Peradotto, JJ. The case is being heard on the 25th of October in 2011.

Respondents Case

Published on: May 4, 2012

Children of Famous Artist Seek Restitution

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is in regards to the estate of Mark Rothko. Kate Rothko and Christopher Rothko are petitioners, while charitable beneficiaries are also cross-petitioners. The respondents are Bernard J. Reis, Theodoros Stamos, Morton Levine, Marlborough Gallery, Inc., Marlborough A.G., and Francis K. Lloyd. The Mark Rothko Foundation, Inc. was listed as an intervener.

The Case

A New York Probate Lawyers said Mark Rothko, a worldwide renowned abstract expressionist artist passed away on February 25, 1970. The petitioners are the artist’s children. The children seek restitution for their father’s estate, both in terms of paintings that were sold by the parties involved, and in financial compensation for the paintings which were already sold to non-party purchases. They also seek to have their legal fees compensated. Essentially, the suit is about whether the children, should have control over their father’s estate, or whether the executors named should. The Attorney General represented the people of New York due to the charitable interest in the case. Reis and Stamos are charged with acting in a conflict of interest, while Levine is charged with negligence regarding the sale of the property. All are charged with not fulfilling their legal obligations correctly.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Discusses Anticipatory Subrogation

by Stephen Bilkis

Estates 7

The Hudson Insurance Company is the plaintiff and AK Construction Co. LLC., Panasia Estates INC., and Hement Mehta are the defendants.

The Case

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Hears Real Property Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the Bay Street Landing Home Owners Association is the Plaintiff, while the defendants include PDR Bay Street/St. George, LLC, Philip Ressa and Estates at Bay Street Landing, LLC.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer asked the plaintiff asked for a summary judgement for $300000 and interest. The defendants once owned 130 Bay Street Landing in Staten Island New York. Counterclaims were also laid by the defendants. Ressa was once a principal in PDR and a guarantor for the Promenade Fund for the HOA. He sued another principal and guarantor, Dominick Marino, and two others: Leib Puretz and Tovia Mermelstein. Those two moved for summary judgment in favor of the defendant. They also asked that Ressa’s lawyer be disqualified because he might need to be a witness.

Published on: April 16, 2012

Court Dicusses Validity of Joint Will in Light of Recent Divorce Proceeding

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.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that 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, a NY Probate Lawyer said 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.