New York City

Published on: July 16, 2012

Court Finds Clear Error in Will

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter involving the estate of Eugenia C. Herceg who is deceased. The petitioner is represented by the law firm of Levene, Gouldin & Thomas, with John H. Hartman for counsel.

Case Background

In the will of Eugenia Herceg there is a residuary clause that is dated the second of December, 1999. This clause states that at the time of her death all of the rest of her personal and real property the same will situate. There is no name of a beneficiary given. In all practicality, this residuary clause only refers to 10% of her estate as the other 90% of the estate is bequeathed to others.

Published on: July 13, 2012

First Wife Petitions Will

by Stephen Bilkis

A man married a woman sometime on February 11, 1921 while they were residents of New York state. A year later, the man filed a case for annulment of his marriage in King’s County. He claimed that the woman he married falsely represented herself. He court dismissed the petition for annulment of marriage.

Two years later, the wife had to be committed to a mental institution and declared as incompetent. She has been confined in a state mental institution from that time until the death of the man in 1954.

A New York Probate Lawyer said five years after the wife was declared incompetent and was ordered to be confined to a mental institution, the man filed another annulment action before the court. This time, the court granted his petition for annulment. The court’s grant of the annulment was conditioned on the execution of the husband of an undertaking to pay the state institution the sum of $7 weekly for her medical costs. The man never signed an undertaking to foot his ex-wife’s medical bills and the clerk of the court never entered the decision granting him the annulment of marriage he had prayed for.

Published on: June 27, 2012

Court Discusses Decedent’s Endowment Fund

by Stephen Bilkis

The wife of a chemical engineering professor left a piece of real property which comprised a substantial portion of her estate worth around $2,800,000 to a polytechnic university. She also left the sum of $2,000,000 as a charitable endowment gift to the same polytechnic university provided that it shall be used as an award to the Distinguished Professorship of Chemical Engineering. A New York Probate Lawyer said the rest of her estate was given as a gift to be used to fund graduate research fellowships or an endowment fund. According to her last will and testament, these cash sums should be restricted to the uses she had enumerated and trusts should be created and the income from the trusts can be used by the same university for general purposes to construct or acquire a building in the name of her late husband.

The woman’s husband was a professor of chemical engineering at the polytechnic university; they lived in the university and spent most of their lives at the university. She also left one quarter of her residual estate worth $126,000,000 to the university as a gift under the same conditions.

The will was probated and the executors rendered their accounting in 2003. In total, the polytechnic university received over $130,000,000 under the woman’s will and the university held $70,400,000 in an endowment fund in her husband’s name with the restrictions stated.

Published on: June 26, 2012

Ex-Wife Files a Claim Against the Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 3 March 1994, a decedent died. He was survived by his ex-wife and their four children. Under the decedent’s will dated 3 August 1988, he left his estate to the daughter (“the daughter”) of one of his sons (“son-one”).

On 3 November 1994, the will was admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued to the son-one’s wife, the nominated executor.

Published on: June 15, 2012

Family Questions Mental Capacity of Decedent

by Stephen Bilkis

On this contested probate proceeding, the guardian for the infant beneficiaries seeks for authorization to retain a medical expert to be paid from the assets’ proceeds.

It was initiated when a man died at the age of 88 and he was survived with seven children and two grandchildren. Afterwards, a man was appointed as the guardian for infant grandchildren of the deceased. Separate objections have been filed by the deceased children and the guardian on behalf of his charges. Based on records, the gross estate is estimated between $26 million and $35 million, consisting primarily of silver holdings, a yacht, farmland and real properties in New York and Connecticut.

Consequently, the proposed will was completed three weeks before the man died from lung cancer. It is offered for validation by the attorney-drafter. Under the proposed will, the deceased made pre-residuary inheritance of specific property, his interest in a corporation to some of his children, devised real property to one child, made monetary reward to his caretakers and disposed of his residuary estate to one of the charitable foundation he established in 1974.

Published on: June 13, 2012

Court Decides Status of Real Estate in Decedent’s Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 31 May 1988, a man (the testator) executed a last will and testament in which he devised and bequeathed a life estate interest in premises located at Hopkins Avenue, County of Kings, State of New York, (Hopkins Avenue property) to defendant, including the right for her to collect all rents as they become due for her own use and benefit.

On 25 November 1988, the testator died. On 17 March 1989, letters of administration of the estate of the testator were issued to the testator’s relative. Thereafter, as administratrix, she entered into a contract to sell the subject premises to a Brokerage Corp.

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: June 3, 2012

Petitioner Requests Preliminary Letters

by Stephen Bilkis

A man died on October 28, 2006 leaving a will dated April 27, 2006. The man’s last will nominates an attorney and a friend as executors. He was survived by his two adult children. The man’s friend renounced his appointment.

The will provides that the man’s entire residuary estate shall be distributed to his woman companion. The will specifically disinherits the man’s children. The attorney assigned as executor has petitioned for preliminary letters testamentary.

By order to show cause, the man’s daughter seeks an order denying the issuance of preliminary letters testamentary to the attorney; disqualifying the attorney from serving as executor of the estate; removing the assigned attorney executor as the attorney for the estate; compelling the attorney to comply with discovery demands previously served; compelling the attorney to produce and file with the court an alleged 2004 will of the man; appointing a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the deceased man’s two infant grandchildren named as beneficiaries in the prior will; appointing the daughter as executor since she was alleged named as executor in the 2004 will; staying the issuance of preliminary letters to the attorney in pending a hearing on the order to show cause; and adjourning the law examinations. The decision addresses only the issue of whether preliminary letters should issue to the attorney.

Published on: June 2, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, in which the accused Medical Center commenced a third-party action against the woman as successor executor of the estate of her husband. The woman appeals from an order of the Supreme Court which denied her motion to dismiss the third-party complaint based upon her allegation that her status as personal representative of the estate of her husband was terminated by operation of law.

New York Probate Lawyers said that on July 18, 2002, the complainant underwent surgery at the Medical Center and the woman’s husband served as the complainant’s anesthesiologist. The anesthesiologist died and his father, as the executor of the anesthesiologist’s estate, petitioned the Surrogate’s Court to have the will admitted to probate. The petition to admit the will to probate stated that the anesthesiologist died while a resident of New York, and that his wife was named in the will as successor executor. By decree, the will was admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued to the anesthesiologist’s father. Thereafter, the father died.

The complainants commenced the main action against the Medical Center. The Medical Center commenced the instant third-party action against the wife, as successor executor of the anesthesiologist’s estate, seeking common-law indemnification. Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said the complainant, a resident of Colorado, retained Colorado attorneys. On behalf of their client, the law firm entered into a stipulation with the Medical Center, in which the complainant admitted that she was served with the third-party summons and complaint, and stated that the third-party summons and complaint would be forwarded to the medical malpractice insurance carrier for the anesthesiologist. The stipulation also stated that the Medical Center will seek no recovery from the Estate of the anesthesiologist except to the extent of any professional liability insurance available to the Estate of the deceased anesthesiologist.

Published on: May 31, 2012

Petitioner Requests a Contingent Executor

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 13 October 2006, a decedent died without a spouse or children and leaving a will dated 5 September 1986. Under the will, in the event that one of the decedent’s brothers (“the brother”), who is the nominated executor, and the decedent’s nephew, the first named contingent executor, predeceased the decedent, failed to qualify, or if the office of executor is otherwise vacant, the decedent’s niece is nominated as the contingent executor.

The first named contingent executor did, in fact, predecease the decedent. Thus, the decedent’s niece is nominated as the contingent executor.