Nassau

Published on: April 15, 2012

Court Rules on Reasonable Attorney and Accountant’s Fees

by Stephen Bilkis

This case pertains to the accounting proceeding relative to attorneys fees, accountant’s fee and commissions.

In February 26, 1996, the decedent died leaving a will dated March 9, 1984 which was decreed on May 18, 2004 to which a letters of administration was issued to the Public Administrator on said date. The summary state shows charges to accounting party of P289,650.33 as the Public Administrator’s first and final accounting. The residuary estate under the will was directed to be paid to Diabetes Association of New York, Inc.

The court in its authority and discretion, considers a number of factors in evaluating legal services and other fees. These includes: the time spent, the complexity of the questions ivolved, the nature of the services provided, the amount of litigation required, the amounts involved and the benefit resulting from the execution of such services, the lawyer’s experience and reputation and the customary fee charge by the Bar for similar services. A New York Probate Lawyer said a legal fee must be imposed reasonably taking into consideration the valude of the estate. The attorney(s) services includes: 1) preparation and filing of the petition for temporary letters of adminstration and cross petition for probate and letters of administration together with the acocmpanying affidavits and rquiredancillary documents; (2) preparation and filing of the renunciation of nominated executor and multiple waivers of process and consent to probate for numerous distributees and legatees (3) obtaining the Public Administrator’s fiduciary bond; (4) review of known family information and research as to whereabouts of alleged distributees (5) preparation and filing of an affidavit of heirship (6) arranging for service of process of probate citations and preparation and filing of an affidavit requesting substituted service (7) preparation and filing of proposed probate decree (8) attendance at the probate citation return date (9) preparation of receipt, release and refunding agreement for the hospital, who is a legatee under decedent’s will and conversations with the administrative and legal personnel regarding same (10) preparation and filing of the Public Adminstrator’s final account and the petition for judicial settlement of account (11) arranging for service of accounting citation and ensuring adequate service of same to secure jurisdiciton over all interested parties (12) multiple telephone conferences and correspondence with various attorneys and the Public Administrator of Nassau County and the employees thereof. The said firm likewise handled the sale of the cooperative apartment and charge services in the amount of $1,500.00 for the said purpose.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Brothers Bring Will Contest Action over Division of Family Business

by Stephen Bilkis

A resident of Nassau County died on 28 December 2010 and was survived by his sister, the petitioner; and two (2) brothers, the respondent and movant herein. The decedent’s last will and testament dated 23 May 2000 was offered for probate (estate litigation or estate administration or will contest) by the petitioner, who was named as the sole beneficiary of the decedent’s residuary estate, as well as the executrix. Preliminary letters testamentary were issued to the petitioner on 13 January 2011. The two (2) brothers of the decedent have filed their objections to the probate of the will.

The arguments presented before the court all boil down to a supermarket known as John’s Farms, which was run by the decedent and one of his brothers (“brother A”). The supermarket is comprised of three separate closely held corporations – (1) Corp. A, which operates the grocery and dry goods business within the decedent’s Farms, owned by the decedent and brother A as equal shareholders; (2) Corp. B, which sells fish and seafood at the decedent’s Farms, and was owned by the decedent and brother A as equal shareholders; and (3) Corp C, which operates a meat market within the decedent’s Farms, owned wholly by decedent.

The two (2) brothers of the decedent were ordered by the court to deliver and turn over to the petitioner the computer taken from the decedent’s home on the date of his death. While certain computer components were eventually turned over to the petitioner, the computer components turned over to the petitioner were not part of the home computer taken from the decedent’s home. A New York Probate Lawyers said that it appeared that the wrong computer had been turned over to the petitioner. Apparently, brother A had several computers used in the business which made it difficult to differentiate and offered to reimburse the estate for the value of the decedent’s computer equipment that was not delivered to the petitioner or her counsel in lieu of turning it over. The court has denied the same stating that the offer to pay the value of the computer is essentially pointless because of the fact that the reason the petitioner sought the decedent’s home computer was to obtain any relevant business records of the decedent thereon. Hence, the petitioner sought to clone all of the computers at the decedent’s Farms.

Published on: April 11, 2012

Court Conducts an Accounting Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

Before the Nassau County Surrogate Court is the Public Administrator’s motion to dismiss the objections in a contested accounting proceeding.

The woman decedent, a resident and domiciliary of Nassau County, died testate. She was survived by her daughter and three sons.

Decedent executed a last will and testament bequeathing her residuary estate equally among her four children and appointed one of her son as executor. The son-executor filed a petition for probate of the will and for letters testamentary. Decedent’s daughter and executor were each represented by counsel while the other two sons appeared personally in the probate proceeding. The other children of the decedent objected to the appointment of the executor. The beneficiaries entered into a settlement, in open court, for the probate of the will and that they would appoint the Public Administrator as administrator of the estate. The will was admitted for probate and, at the same time, letters of administration were issued to the Public Administrator.

Published on: April 9, 2012

Court Determines if it has Subject Matter Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

On 28 December 1993, the decedent died. On 28 January1994, The decedent’s Last Will and Testament was admitted to probate (no will contest) and letters testamentary were issued.

The issue here (estate litigation) is whether or not an order consenting to a transfer to the Nassau County court of an action currently pending in Supreme Court, New York County is proper.

The respondent has argued that the Nassau County court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the dispute and that it is not the proper venue for the case.

Published on: April 4, 2012

Court Says it has the Power to Compel Fiduciary to Produce Information

by Stephen Bilkis

A testator died and his executrix successfully had his will admitted into probate. The executrix had already rendered an accounting of the properties of the estate and she was in the process of litigating claims for and against the estate. She is readying the estate for distribution to the distributees and heirs mentioned in the will.

The executrix was the wife of the testator’s attorney. He was also the same lawyer who drafted the testator’s will. It turns out that the husband of the executrix of the testator’s will had been the legal counsel for the testator for 40 years. The testator signed his will in the presence of the husband of the executrix. It was also uncovered that the lawyer opened a bank account into which the assets of the testator were transferred by the lawyer just before the death of the testator. The lawyer’s wife was named in that bank account as the person to whom the bank account shall be transferred upon the death of the testator. A New York Probate Lawyer said she document that transferred the assets of the testator to the lawyer’s wife was signed by the lawyer as a witness.

For these reasons, the Surrogate’s Court issued a subpoena to the executrix’s husband for him to come to court and bring the documents regarding the opening of the bank account in the name of the testator just before his death; those documents that transferred ownership of the account from the testator to the executrix and all other documents mentioned in the order.

Published on: April 3, 2012

Court Discusses Fraud Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

Queens Probate 19

New York Probate Lawyers said this is a case being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the state of New York. The action before the court is to recover the possession of real property. The defendant is appealing an order made in the Supreme Court of Queens County that granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment that dismissed the defendant’s counterclaims to impose a construct trust for the subject property and the proceeds of a bank account.

Case Background

Published on: April 1, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue of French Will

by Stephen Bilkis

This case started in 1951 when one of the heirs of the decedent applied for ancillary letters of administration concerning holographic will that was said to be executed in France. In his petition, it was alleged that the decedent was a resident of France who died in the same country and left properties within the jurisdiction of the New York court. The petitioner also alleged that the will was made according to French law and that the same was recognized and established accordingly under the laws of that country. This claim of the applicant for estate administration of the decedent became an issue particularly with regards to the claim of domiciliary. The question was put forward by the New York state Tax Commission and by another party who in the end filed a motion to stop the proceedings of the court. This latter party had an interest in the case because according to him, the decedent owed him money for the legal services he rendered and which amount he wanted to recover from the property of the decedent. It is worth noting that this same party is the executor named by the decedent in a will and a codicil allegedly executed by the decedent in New York. Thus, it appears the decedent executed two wills and a codicil while he was living.

While the question of the real domicile of the decedent was still pending, the executor pushed through with the estate litigation of the will and a codicil executed by the decedent. The executor named in the will declared that the decedent was a resident of New York at the time of his death. According to a New York Probate Lawyer, the proponent of both the will and the codicil, who is also the executor designated in the will, argued that he was obligated to apply for the settlement of the properties of the decedent because he truly believed that the decedent was a domiciliary of New York and that if the decedent indeed transferred his domiciliary to France, that he has no sufficient information with regards to that and adding further that he was not given the opportunity to establish the veracity of the later will which was probated under French law.

The proponent with his lawyer went to France and there gathered information regarding the domicile of the decedent and also talked to witnesses relating to the will that was executed there. Nassau County Probate Lawyers said it was in France that the proponent was able to claim the money that he wanted to get from the probate proceeding in New York. When he returned to New York, he moved that the probate proceeding be discontinued claiming among others that based on his findings, there is very little chance of them succeeding in proving the New York residency of the decedent and as such, there is no more reason for the proceeding to push through. The proponent also asked the court that the services of his lawyers be paid including the one that he contracted in France.

Published on: March 31, 2012

Court Determines Will Contest Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

An alleged will was found by the accused among the deceased person’s possessions. The document was signed by the deceased but the signatures of the witnesses are torn off and missing. The accused states that the attorney whose name appears at the back of the will does not remember having such document as the alleged will or attending on the execution of any will by the deceased. The complainant was named as the executor and sole beneficiary in the will. If the deceased is found to die without a valid will, her sole heir would be her sister, a Finnish citizen who resides in Finland and who intends to file a will contest. Records show that the probate will not be granted and the deceased died without leaving a valid will. Although it is possible that an investigation may reveal and proof may present that the will was validly executed and was not broken and torn by the deceased.

When the complainant learned about the will, his lawyer visited the accused person’s office and requested that the will be filed immediately as required by law. Since the complainant was anxious to file a petition for the validation of the said will, instead of merely filing the will, the accused filed the will on the same day that he filed a petition for the issuance of a ruling to show the reason why the will should not be admitted for validation. A New York Probate Lawyer said they also filed a petition for a ruling to admit the will for validation and directing the issuance of letters of administration to the executor who may qualify or to determine that the act of tearing caused the instrument to be revoked. If the court found that the will was revoked then as an alternative, the complainant request for the issuance of letters of administration to the accused. The accused takes the position that the will is not valid and validation will be denied. Together with the filing of the petition, the accused made a motion that temporary letters of administration be issued to him.

The complainant opposed the motion of the accused for the appointment of the temporary administrator and moved for an order to dismiss the petition to verify the will. He also requested for a further order to authorize him to petition the court to verify the said will. The accused person’s motion was granted and the complainant’s motion was denied. The order denying the complainant’s motion provides that the motion to dismiss the petition for the validation of the will or the alternative issuance of letters of administration to the accused is denied in all respects.

Published on: March 29, 2012

Courts Decide Will Contest Regarding German vs. American Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

This proceeding is about the two last wills made in different states by a deceased woman. The petitioner in this appeal requests for the validation of the will executed in 1955 while the deceased was in New York County. The petitioner as the representative in administering the assets leaves the residuary estate to a New York charity. The deceased traveled to West Germany in 1965 and executed again a holographic will in 1967. The will provides that it revokes all prior wills. The woman died in Germany in 1968. The respondent cross-petitioner is the deceased’s post deceased brother and is the sole successor under the later will. The latter will was established in the court proceedings in West Germany in 1972. The respondent cross-petitioner moved for judgment without trial to dismiss the petition and to deny probate to the prior 1955 will. In addition, the respondent filed a petition for ancillary letters on the basis of the 1967 will.

The court rendered a temporary decision holding the motion for the judgment without proceeding in suspending a trial to allow a full opportunity for each part to present proof and cross-examine each other’s experts on German law. A New York Probate Lawyer said the facts of the case were set forth in that decision and will be presented when necessary. The trial was held upon the issues of whether the German courts issued a judgment or an administrative certificate, whether the document issued by the German court contains a final ruling under the law or merely a pronounced determination and whether a finding of German residency was essential to the establishment of the will in Germany.

The court found that the legal order was rendered by courts of record in Germany in the establishment of the 1967 holographic will of the deceased. In addition, the certificate of inheritance issued by the District Court in Germany constitutes a final decree and not merely a pronounce determination. Moreover, finding of German residency was necessary to the establishment of the 1967 will in Germany. On the basis of the recognized rules, the court gives full acknowledgment to the establishment of the 1967 will of the deceased in the German courts.

Published on: March 23, 2012

Court Determines Jurisdiction of Conflicting Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

An American citizen who was domiciled in Austria made two wills in 1962 and in 1964. The 1964 will was brought before the Surrogate’s Court in New York for probate by the testator’s lawyer who was also his executor. In this will, the testator revoked all prior wills and he directed that the remainder of his estate after the payment of debts and funeral expenses be shared by his ex-wife and his close personal friend.

The two daughters of the testator filed their objections to the probate proceedings in New York. They claim that because the testator was a resident and domiciliary of Austria, the courts in Austria have jurisdiction over his estate. It was also claimed by them that the Austrian Court has already begun hearing the probate proceedings of the 1962 will of their deceased father which the daughters instituted.

The 1962 will provided that the testator’s estate consisting of 145 common shares in an American telephone and telegraph company be distributed to his ex-wife after deducting the payment of debts and funeral expenses. And, if his ex-wife was dead, then the shares of stock will be divided equally between his two daughters.