New York City

Published on: April 18, 2012

Appellants Contend that Court Does Not have Proper Jurisdiction in Prior Ruling

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: 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.

Published on: April 9, 2012

Court Questions Appointment of Guardian ad Litem

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is not about estate litigation but about the petition of a guardian in Vermont County for ancillary committee designation covering the properties of his ward in New York County. The Guardian ad Litem in New York questioned the appointment of the petitioner as guardian of the old woman who was declared an incompetent due to old age and sickness and who is also a known resident of New York with substantial assets and properties therein. The guardian ad litem in particular questioned the proceedings conducted by the Court of Vermont County. He also poised an issue whether the New York court should assume jurisdiction and whether a resident committee should be assigned to act on behalf of the old woman with regards to her properties in New York. The question was also raised about the propriety of the petitioner particularly on how he became the guardian of the old woman.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that before the petitioner was assigned by the Vermont court as a guardian, he first acted under a general power of attorney for the old woman. This involved paying her dues and managing her finances that included signing checks for the old woman who is already suffering from mental illness. The Vermont County appointed the petitioner as guardian under the application made by the niece of the old woman and it started when the court required the appearance of the old woman to a probate hearing. Since the old woman is already bed-ridden and could no longer move around much less travel, the niece who is residing in Canada decided to apply to the court that the petitioner be appointed as guardian-adult which application was granted by the court of Vermont County. Upon appointment as guardian or committee, the petitioner then applied to a New York Court as ancillary committee covering all the properties of the old woman in New York.

In deciding the issues raised by the guardian ad litem, the court answered the same point by point. On the issue of whether the Court of Vermont County has jurisdiction over the person of the old woman who is a known resident of New York the court said that the findings of the Vermont court is not binding and this also applies to the appointment of a guardian. The Supreme Court of New York however also said that the proceeding in Vermont is not invalid totally and that there is reason to agree based on the findings of the Vermont court as testified by witnesses during the proceedings in that court, that the old woman is indeed no longer capable of managing her affairs due to old age and mental sickness.

Published on: April 7, 2012

Can a Witness to a Will Signing Also be a Beneficiary?

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York attorney applied for letters of administration upon the request of the executor of a will. The said executor is also the beneficiary and a nephew of the decedent who was a New York resident at the time of her demise. Upon closer observation of the will, it was noticed that the beneficiary also stood as witness to the execution of the same as shown in the document. Under New York law, a witness cannot be a beneficiary at the same time and this is to avoid among others undue influence from coming into the picture in the execution of the will. This is the only question poised that must be determined by the court in this preliminary estate administration proceeding.

The facts of the case showed that the decedent was a resident of New York. She visited her nephews in Canada and there executed a will in front of 2 witnesses that included the designated executor-beneficiary. In the will, the decedent specifically designated her nephew as the sole beneficiary of her estate relating to personal property and also assigned him as the executor of the same. A New York Probate Lawyer said when the time for presentation of the will came, jurisdiction was acquired by the court over the persons of the 2 other nephews of the decedent but they decided not to participate in the proceedings. A consent and waiver from the other brother was obtained and as such there was no will contest that can hamper the proceedings from commencing under normal circumstances save for the perceived defect in the document as regards the formalities required by the law when it comes to the valid execution of a will.

The petitioner in this regard presented proof of the applicable laws in Canada. He argued that since the instrument was executed in the said country, then the formalities required in executing a will is controlled by the law of the place where it was executed. He argued further that since the will is valid where it was executed, then it must also be treated as valid in New York such that the formalities required by New York law in the execution of a last will and testament should not apply in this particular case. Long Island Probate Lawyers said that the nephew assigned as sole beneficiary-executor can also be a witness at the same time in the said instrument is not irregular under Canadian Law even if the same is not permitted in New York should not be an issue as the place where the instrument was made and deemed to have complied with the requirements must always be given weight.

Published on: April 6, 2012

Court Determines of Undue Influence Involved in Will Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A lady testator co-owned an apartment building in New York with her two sisters. The bulk of her estate came from her share in the rent income she derived from the apartments and the value of the apartment building and its premises. She executed a will on September 16, 1997 naming her two sisters as co-executors with their neighbor. She gave legacies to her seven nephews and nieces, the children of her two sisters but she provided that the remainder of her estate will be shared equally by the three executors and in the event that her sisters die ahead of her, the estate will go to their neighbor.

As it turned out, the testator’s two sisters died ahead of her. The testator herself lived until she was 93. She died on June 18, 2006. Their neighbor brought the petition for probate of her will.

The nephews and nieces of the testator all object to the probate of the will on the grounds that it was not genuine; it was not validly executed; it was executed by mistake; it was executed without testamentary capacity; it is the product of their aunt’s neighbor’s undue influence on her; it is the product of duress exercised by their aunt’s neighbor on her; and it was procured by the neighbor’s fraud.

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 4, 2012

What are Appropriate Legal Fees in an Estate Case?

by Stephen Bilkis

On 4 July 2009, the decedent died prompting the petitioner to employ the services of a lawyer. A retainer Agreement was entered into by the parties stipulating the amount of attorney’s fees to be paid. Thereafter, the petitioner questioned the amount billed by the lawyer as his attorney’s fees alleging a wrong calculation of the estate as the basis, among others.

How much should, actually, be the attorney’s fees? What should be included or excluded?

A New York Probate Lawyer said the court has ruled that the ultimate responsibility for approving legal fees that are charged to an estate and the discretion to determine what constitutes reasonable compensation for legal services rendered in the course of an estate lies with them. While there is no hard and fast rule to calculate reasonable compensation to an attorney in every case, the court is required to exercise his or her authority “with reason, proper discretion and not arbitrarily”.

Published on: April 3, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Between French and NY Wills

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.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that 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. 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. 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. NY York Probate Lawyer said the proponent also asked the court that the services of his lawyers be paid including the one that he contracted in France.

Published on: April 1, 2012

Court Rules on Fees to be Paid to the Guardian ad Litem

by Stephen Bilkis

The decedent, a resident of Nassau County died on January 24, 2006 who on October 24, 2003 created the Revocable Trust U/A during which he executed his will now offered for probate. The instruments were drater by the long time attorney who supervised the execution of both documents. Bulk of the assets were transferred to the trust while he was alive, thus, the will is attributed as “catch all” document. The probates estate is counted at $10,000.00 while the trust holds asets is close to $1,000,000.00.

The guardian ad litem for the decedents daughter claims for his services in the amount of $2,828.00, he rendering 7.2 hours which shall be taken out of the estate. The statute governing the compensation of guardian ad litem provides tht fee is payable in the following consideration:

1. the estate

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.