Probate & Estate Litigation

Published on: March 27, 2014

Court Rules in Will Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said in this probate proceeding, petitioner, by motion, seeks an order vacating a stipulation of settlement and a renunciation and disclaimer purportedly executed to effectuate the settlement.

A Nassau County Probate attorney said that decedent was survived by his spouse (petitioner) and two children of a prior marriage (respondents).

A New York Will Lawyer said the petitioner filed a petition for probate of an instrument and preliminary letters issued to her. Decedent’s son appeared by counsel in the probate proceeding and settlement negotiations ensued. The negotiations resulted in a stipulation of settlement which was “so ordered”. The settlement provided that the assets be divided into three equal parts: 1/3 to the spouse, 1/3 to the respondent, respectively, in trust.

Published on: March 22, 2014

Court Analyzes Will Due to Allegations of Undue Influence

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that the complainant moves to dismiss the objections filed contending that they are not legally cognizable. A deceased woman’s last will and testament nominated the accountant, her brother, as administrator of her estate and made him the beneficiary of the residuary that comprised 49% of the estate. The deceased’s son, who received a 35% share of the estate in trust, contested the will which was denied after the jury found the proponent had exercised undue influence. Preliminary letters then issued to the complainant were subsequently revoked.

A New York Will Lawyer said sources revealed that the first objection interposed to the account must be dismissed as legally insufficient. Further, no statute compels a fiduciary, prior to judicial settlement of his account, to make application to charge the estate with counsel fees acquired in offering the will for probate with the exception of an attorney-fiduciary who does not have at least one co-fiduciary who is not rendering legal services. Furthermore, an affidavit of services having been filed, the opponent’s claim that no documentation of the services rendered was presented lacks merit.

Queens Probate Attorneys said the center of the controversy revolves about the second objection which asserts the preliminary administrator has no right to recover commissions, or to charge the estate with counsel fees he incurred as the unsuccessful proponent.

Published on: March 21, 2014

Petitioner Alleges Undue Influence Regarding Will Execution

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, in this contested probate proceeding, the proponent, the daughter of the decedent, moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment dismissing the objections and admitting the propounded instrument dated June 25, 2007 to probate. The objectant, who is the son of the decedent, cross-moves for summary judgment denying probate to the propounded will dated June 25, 2007.

A New York Will Lawyer said the decedent, died on August 2, 2008, survived by four children. The decedent’s wife, predeceased the decedent, as did his daughter. The will offered for probate provides a $25,000.00 bequest to his son; the remaining amount of a private mortgage held by decedent for property located at 225 Hillside Avenue, Douglaston, New York is to be divided evenly among his daughters and the residuary is to be divided evenly among them. The will nominates the proponent as executor.

A Westchester County Probate Lawyers said that, the objectant has interposed the following objections to the propounded instrument: “1. the instrument propounded is not the last will and testament of the decedent. 2. The instrument is not the last will and testament of the decedent in that the signature affixed thereto, alleged to be the signature of decedent, is not, in fact, decedent’s signature. 3. The instrument offered for probate was not duly executed by the decedent in that he did not affix his signature at the end thereof, nor was such signature made by the decedent in the presence of each of the attesting witnesses, or acknowledged by him to have been made, to each of the attesting witnesses, nor did the decedent declare the instrument to be his last will, nor did at least two attesting witnesses each sign their names to said instrument as a witness at the end thereof at the request of the decedent and in his presence. 4. The instrument offered for probate was not duly executed by the decedent in that he did not publish the same as her will in the presence of the witnesses whose names are subscribed thereto and that the said alleged witnesses did not sign as witnesses in his presence or in the presence of each other. 5. The instrument offered for probate was not freely and voluntarily made by the decedent. Upon information and belief, the instrument, and the signature thereto, was obtained and procured by fraud, duress and/or undue influence practiced upon the decedent by the proponent or by other persons acting in concert or privity with her whose names are presently unknown to respondent. 6. That on the 25th day of June, 2007, the said decedent, was not of sound mind or memory and was not mentally capable of making a will. 7. Said instrument purported to be the last will and testament of the decedent, was revoked, because decedent executed a second original will on the same day he executed the instrument being offered in this probate proceeding, and only said instrument has been produced and offered for probate.”

Published on: March 20, 2014

Court Listens to Probate and Discovery Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, before the court are a probate proceeding and a discovery proceeding. The decedent, died on June 14, 2008 a resident of Nassau County, survived by her four adult children. Decedent had been married for fifty (50) years. They divorced in April 2001. At the time of her death, decedent resided in property located at 55 Chestnut Hill, Roslyn, New York.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, these proceedings arise out of the same facts and involve four (4) documents. Decedent and her husband executed a joint will dated December 20, 1993. The joint will provided in relevant part the following: SECOND. Upon the death of one of us, leaving the other of us surviving, the entire estate of the one dying first and all property of which she or he has power of disposal, whether owned jointly or severally, is hereby given to the survivor, upon the condition, however, that whatever remains of the above estate after the death of the survivor shall be given as set forth herein Paragraph Fourth hereof. Paragraph FOURTH created a trust for the benefit of the testator’s grandchildren and an outright bequest. The will further provided: FIFTH: We have mutually agreed upon the foregoing disposition of our property, and, in consideration thereof, it is further mutually agreed by both of us that this Will shall be forever binding upon both of us and upon the estate of each of us, and shall bind our legatees, distributes (sic) and representatives. We further mutually agree that this Will shall be irrevocable and shall not be modified or revoked by either of us or by the survivor of us, except that it may be revoked or modified only by a writing subscribed by both of us and executed by both of us with the formality of a Will. SEVENTH: Upon the death of one of us leaving the other surviving, the survivor is hereby appointed executor or executrix of the estate of the one dying first; and upon the death of both of us.

A Bronx Probate Lawyer said that, decedent and her husband entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement in January 2001 which provided, in part, that: 7. The Husband and Wife have heretofore executed a Joint Irrevocable Last Will and Testament in New York, which is again reaffirmed by the parties as their Last Will and Testament, and both parties agree to maintain and support the obligation and covenants made therein and further agree not to attempt to Revoke such Last Will and Testament. Decedent and her husband owned two residences; one was a condominium in Boca Raton, Florida, the other, a condominium in Roslyn, New York. The Marital Settlement Agreement provided that Jerome acquired title to the Florida property and the decedent acquired the Roslyn property.

Published on: March 15, 2014

Court Hears Estate Case Regarding Foreclosure Action

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that this is an action transferred to this court from Supreme Court, Nassau County, defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide), one of several defendants, moves the court for an order dismissing the complaint as against Countrywide. Plaintiffs oppose Countrywide’s motion and cross-move for summary judgment dismissing Countrywide’s answer, or, in the alternative, striking Countrywide’s fourth and seventh affirmative defenses.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, this action emanates from a foreclosure proceeding involving property located at 198-200 Wellesley Street, Hempstead, New York. That property was owned by the decedent who died intestate on July 13, 1986. Her brother, administered her estate as voluntary administrator pursuant to SCPA Article 13. It appears, although it is not entirely clear, that her brother was the decedent’s sole distributee and that the subject property vested in him immediately upon his sister’s death. The brother then died testate on June 9, 1994. An administrator was appointed the voluntary administrator of his estate. The court’s file contains his original will which devises and bequeaths all of his property to his cousin. He died August 1, 2000. There was no deed executed from the estate of the decedents, nor was there a deed from the estate of the brother. Although the brother original will was filed in the court by Calhoun incident to the voluntary administration of the estate of the decedent, the will was never offered for, or admitted to, probate. The plaintiffs are the non-marital children of the decedent, the administrators of his estate, and claim to be his only distributees.

A Long Island Probate Lawyer said that, the underlying action by plaintiffs is to vacate the tax lien foreclosure sale, the deed by which the current owners of record, defendants, obtained title, and the mortgage placed on the property by the defendant Countrywide incident to the purchase of the property by defendants. Plaintiffs contend that as the fee owners of the subject property at the time the foreclosure action was commenced, they were entitled to notice of the proceeding and the failure to provide that notice requires the vacating of the judgment in the foreclosure action and all subsequent deeds and mortgages.

Published on: March 6, 2014

Court Decides Case Regarding Lost Will

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said a deceased man was survived by his wife and three adult children. Afterward, his last will was offered to probate. The man’s 2003 last will bequeathed his personal property, shares of stocks and real property to his wife. A trust is also established for the benefit of his wife, and upon her death, the property was to be held in trust for their three children until they reached the age of thirty.

A New York Will Lawyer said the article sixth of the man’s 2003 last will provides that the man’s interest for various companies and real property is to be held in trust for the benefit of his wife, but subject to the option of his son to purchase the same.

Afterward, the last will was admitted to probate and the letters testamentary was issued to the estate administrator.

Published on: March 5, 2014

Court Discusses Revocation of a Waiver

by Stephen Bilkis

On 22 April 2009, EB, a resident of Nassau County died purportedly leaving a will dated 20 March 2009. He was survived by his wife from a second marriage, JB, and by five children.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that under the purported will, one-third (1/3) of the residuary estate is to be placed in a supplemental needs trust for the decedent’s wife; the remainder of the residuary estate is to be divided into seven equal shares with one share for each of the EB’s children (other than P) and the decedent’s three step-children; and, it nominates KH, EB’s daughter, and PH, KH’s husband, as executors.

Consequently, the purported will was offered for probate by the nominated executors. On 12 May 2009, a waiver and consent was signed by JB. On 16 June 2009, it was filed with the court. P, one of EB’s children, is under a disability. Thus, a guardian ad litem was appointed for her.

Published on: March 4, 2014

Court Discusses Case Involving In Terrorem Clause

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said a petition for the probate of an instrument dated 11 March 2008 was filed by the nominated executor before the court along with the recovery of property alleged to be an asset of the estate pursuant to SCPA 2103.

A New York Will Lawyer said the parties are: petitioner, the nominated executor; and, respondents, the children of decedent and children of a predeceased son.

The respondents seek: a stay of the probate proceeding pending conclusion of the SCPA 2103 proceeding; a stay of the probate proceeding pending a construction of the in terrorem clause in the instrument offered for probate; an order granting petitioner the right to depose the nominated successor executor prior to filing objections; and, an order granting petitioner the right to depose the nominated successor executor and attorney-draftsman of a prior instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of decedent, again, prior to the filing of objections.

Published on: March 2, 2014

Petitioners File Will Contest Based on Fraud

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, this is a proceeding to vacate a decree of probate and to allow the petitioners to withdraw the waivers of process, consents to probate they executed on May 17, 1999. The petitioners are the decedent’s four adult children, the executor of the estate, opposes the requested relief. The husband is the decedent’s surviving spouse; he and the decedent were married in November 1991. He is not the father of the petitioners.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, on February 20, 2008, the court issued a decision and order wherein the court granted the petitioners’ counsel’s unopposed motion to withdraw as the petitioners’ counsel and stayed the proceedings for 30 days after a copy of the order was served by overnight delivery on the petitioners. A copy of the order was served as directed, and the period of the stay has expired. The petition to vacate the decree granting probate and for other relief has now been submitted for decision.

The decedent died on December 5, 1998 at the age of 57. Her last will and testament dated March 11, 1995 was admitted to probate by decree dated July 29, 1999, and letters testamentary were issued to the husband. The affidavit of subscribing witnesses annexed to the will states that the will was executed under the supervision of an attorney. The decedent left her entire estate to the husband. In the event that he had predeceased the decedent, the decedent bequeathed the estate to the petitioners, per stirpes.

Published on: February 26, 2014

The issue in this case is whether the United States estate tax should be allocated against legacies bequeathed in the Mexican will of the decedent.

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, the decedent was a citizen of the United States, domiciled in Mexico City, who possessed substantial assets in New York and in Mexico. On May 14, 1965 she executed a will in New York which disposed of all of her property ‘wheresoever’s situate’, directed that, regardless of her domicile at death, her will be offered for probate in New York County, that the administration of her estate be conducted subject to the jurisdiction of this court, and that her will and all dispositions therein be construed and regulated by the laws of the State of New York. The residuary estate administration was bequeathed in equal shares to two friends, one of whom resided in Brooklyn and the other in El Paso, Texas. The latter is the objectant here.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, on January 20, 1966–approximately eight months after the execution of her will in New York–the decedent executed a notarial will in Mexico City. An English translation of the Spanish text is incorporated in the probate decree of this court. The will contains several general legacies expressed in Mexican currency and ‘for the remainder of her estate (the testatrix) institutes as her sole heirs in equal one-third shares’ three individuals, all residents of Mexico City. This instrument made no mention of the New York will and no reference at all to estate taxes. It declares that ‘the testamentary provisions contained in this instrument shall apply only to the property or money which the testatrix has in the Mexican Republic’, and it appoints Mexican executors. A second notarial will was executed in Mexico on April 25, 1966. It is actually a codicil to the January will, revoking one general legacy and also the institution of one of the three as an heir, leaving the other two persons ‘as the sole heiresses in equal parts.’ This instrument also is silent with respect to estate taxes and their impact.

A Westchester County Probate Lawyer said that, the decedent died in Mexico on April 22, 1967. Her New York will and the two notarial instruments were offered for probate in this court. Preliminary letters testamentary were issued to the executor named in the New York will on June 2, 1967. By decree dated June 5, 1968 this court found that the will dated May 14, 1965 had been duly executed, that the instruments in the Spanish language dated January 20, 1966 and April 25, 1966 had been duly established as testamentary instruments in accordance with the laws of Mexico, and that the English translations offered for probate were true translations of the Spanish original. A New York Probate Lawyer said that, it decreed that the three paper writings be admitted to probate ‘as together constituting the last will and testament of the said Bessie Owen, deceased. Letters testamentary were directed to issue to Bankers Trust Company, the executor named in the New York will, ‘provided that such letters testamentary, and the authority, responsibility and accountability of Bankers Trust Company thereunder, shall not extend to property, money or matters administered in Mexico but shall otherwise be unlimited.’ Such letters were issued on June 7, 1968.