Probate & Estate Litigation

Published on: August 7, 2023

Court consided whether a person declared incapacitated under Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 has testamentary capacity. Matter of Curtis 2013 NY Slip Op 51417(U) (2013)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, testamentary capacity refers to an individual’s mental soundness at the time of executing a will. As per New York law, the testator must possess the mental acuity to comprehend the nature and consequences of their actions in creating a will. According to EPTL §3-1.1, the testator is required to understand the extent and nature of their property, recognize the natural objects of their bounty, and appreciate the overall testamentary act. The standard for testamentary capacity is distinct from other legal documents, requiring a lower level of cognitive ability. Challenges to testamentary capacity often involve scrutinizing the testator’s mental state at the exact moment of will execution, and evidence of incapacity before or after that moment is considered only if it impacts the testator’s state at the time of execution.

Matter of Curtis, 2013 NY Slip Op 51417(U) (2013) is a case involving significant wealth, complex family dynamics, and a challenge to testamentary capacity. The late Candace Jocelyn Curtis, the recipient of a substantial ten-million-dollar structured settlement, becomes the central figure in a legal drama that involves her purported last will and testament dated January 1, 2012. This blog post aims to dissect the case, exploring its background, key issues, the court’s holding, and the broader implications it holds for probate law.

Background Facts

Published on: July 3, 2023

In a case about allocation of wrongful death award, the court addresses an issue of jurisdiction. In re Mcmillan-Hoyte, 71 Misc. 3d 1042 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a petition by Clathina McMillan-Hoyte, as the Administrator of the Estate of Henderson T. Hoyte, seeking approval for the allocation and distribution of settlement proceeds. The matter arises from the allocation of 100% of the settlement to wrongful death, a decision challenged by the Albany County Department of Social Services (DSS). This blog will delve into the background facts, the key issue of jurisdiction, the court’s holding, a brief discussion of relevant legal principles, and a conclusion.

This case involves a wrongful death. Wrongful death refers to a legal claim arising when a person dies due to the negligence, intentional actions, or misconduct of another party. For example, if someone dies due to medical malpractice, the decedent’s survivors and/or estate made have a claim against the negligent medical professional. This cause of action allows the surviving family members or beneficiaries to seek compensation for the losses they suffered as a result of the decedent’s death.

When a wrongful death claim results in a monetary award, the court must determine during a wrongful death compromise proceeding, if the award is for wrongful death or for personal injury. This is a critical determination because it determines who is actually entitled to the money. If the money is awarded for wrongful death, the decedent’s next of kin would be entitled to receive it. However, if the money is for personal injury, then the decedent’ estate would be entitled to receive it. The money would go through the probate process and would ultimately be distributed based on the decedent’s will or intestate succession.

Published on: July 3, 2023

Surrogate’s Court dismissed objections based on lack of testamentary capacity, finding them to be based on mere surmise. In re Horn 68 Misc. 3d 1217 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In re Horn, 68 Misc. 3d 1217 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2020), the dispute revolves around the Last Will and Testament dated January 15, 2019, including a claim related to the testamentary capacity of the testator. Testamentary capacity is crucial in ensuring the validity of a person’s will. It reflects the mental and emotional state of the testator, verifying their ability to comprehend the nature of their assets, understand the consequences of their decisions, and identify rightful beneficiaries. Establishing testamentary capacity safeguards against potential exploitation, fraud, or undue influence. A sound mind during will creation ensures that the document truly represents the individual’s intentions. Without testamentary capacity, the legitimacy of the will may be questioned, leading to legal disputes and jeopardizing the deceased’s final wishes. Thus, testamentary capacity is indispensable for maintaining the integrity of the probate process.

Factual Background

Russell L. Van Horn passed away on January 19, 2019, leaving a contested last will and testament dated January 15, 2019 (the “January 15th Will”). While hospitalized due to cancer at Orange Regional Medical Center, Decedent’s nephew, Kiel Van Horn, drafted a will on January 14, 2019 (the “January 14th Will”), incorporating handwritten changes made by the Decedent. The January 14th Will bequeathed property and assets to family members, including a 1/5 share of the estate residue to Objectant Tammy Long. On January 15, 2019, Kiel Van Horn created the January 15th Will, revoking the previous version. Objectant Long contests the January 15th Will, alleging lack of capacity, duress, undue influence, or fraud.

Published on: June 7, 2023

Medical malpractice and wrongful death compromise. Delrossi v. Defendant V, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 24462 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

by Stephen Bilkis

Delrossi v. Defendant V, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 24462 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005) is a complicated case that spans over two decades. The intricacies of this legal battle, involving issues of wrongful death, survivorship claims, and reimbursement rights, present a fascinating study in the interplay between state and federal laws. The case begins as a wrongful death case based on malpractice. Ultimately, there is a fight over who is entitled to the money from the wrongful death claim.

When someone dies due to the negligence of another person, a wrongful death claim can be filed against the negligent parties to recover damages. Through a wrongful death compromise proceeding, the court determines if the damages are for wrongful death or for personal injury.

Background Facts

Published on: June 5, 2023

Surrogate’s Court was asked to construe the terms of a will. In re Will of Paulin 61 Misc. 3d 1214 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

Will construction is a legal process aimed at interpreting and understanding the intentions of a testator, the person who made the will, when the document’s language is unclear or subject to multiple interpretations. This process becomes necessary when beneficiaries or interested parties raise concerns or disputes regarding the meaning of specific provisions in the will. The court engages in will construction to ensure that the testator’s wishes are accurately carried out, taking into account legal principles and rules of interpretation. This involves analyzing the language used in the will, considering the overall context, and applying relevant legal standards. Will construction proceedings seek to resolve ambiguities, clarify terms, and ultimately ascertain the true intent of the testator, providing clarity for the proper distribution of assets among heirs and beneficiaries.

The case of In re Will of Paulin, 61 Misc. 3d 1214 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2018) involved Dorothy Jean Paulin’s contested will, dated December 27, 2006. The objections raised by the decedent’s grandson, Cerious McCray, revolve around allegations of undue influence and a plea for the construction of a crucial clause in the will.

Background Facts

Published on: May 17, 2023

Appellate Division rejected objectant’s claims that beneficiary had turned testator against them. In re Eastman, 63 A.D.3d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

Undue influence in New York involves exerting improper pressure to manipulate a testator’s free will and control their testamentary decisions. Specifically, when one person strategically influences a testator to harbor negative sentiments against another individual, it constitutes undue influence. This could include actions like spreading false information, creating a distorted perception, or exploiting a position of trust to turn the testator against someone they would otherwise favor. In the context of wills, New York law seeks to ensure that the testator’s decisions are genuine and reflective of their true intentions, free from external coercion or manipulation.

In re Eastman, 63 A.D.3d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) involves a contested probate proceeding, where the objectant raises objections to the probate of the last will and testament of Laura Delano Eastman, citing fraud and undue influence. Central to the dispute is the alleged influence exerted by Marguerite Lewis, a friend of the decedent. The objectant, a beneficiary under the will, asserts that Lewis unduly swayed the decedent by casting the objectant in an unfavorable light after the termination of their relationship. Additionally, the objectant contends that the decedent was misled about the financial and physical well-being of another beneficiary, her sister Judith Adams, resulting in a purported decrease in her share of the estate.

Background Facts

Published on: May 10, 2023

Surrogate’s Court was not convinced of claims that a will was invalid. In re Quinn, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 31655 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In re Quinn, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 31655 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2018) was a contested probate proceeding centers around the last will and testament of Cecilia A. Quinn, dated July 26, 2010. The court faces a motion for summary judgment from the petitioner, Maureen Quinn, seeking to dismiss objections to probate. Simultaneously, the objectant, Eileen Quinn, launches a cross-motion, urging the court to sustain objections and deny probate based on allegations of lack of testamentary capacity, due execution failure, and fraud and undue influence.

Background Facts

Cecilia A. Quinn, survived by four children, left behind a will that triggered familial discord. Maureen Quinn, the petitioner and one of Cecilia’s children, initiated the probate proceedings, facing objections from Eileen Quinn, who challenged the will’s validity on multiple grounds including lack of testamentary capacity, failure to properly execute, fraud, and undue influence.

Published on: May 3, 2023

Disinherited grandchidren of testator object to probating will. Matter of Bianco 195 A.D.2d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

by Stephen Bilkis

Disinheritance of close relatives often sparks suspicions, with the disinherited parties speculating on potential untoward events that led to their exclusion. While such changes to an estate plan may raise eyebrows, they alone fall short of serving as conclusive evidence for claims of undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, or fraud in the absence of additional supporting factors.

In Matter of Bianco 195 A.D.2d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), the disinherited grandchildren challenged the testator’s will. With allegations of fraud, claims of undue influence, and the crucial question of testamentary capacity, this case navigates the complexities of family dynamics, legal intricacies, and the pursuit of justice.

Background Facts

Published on: May 1, 2023

In a wrongful death compromise case, the court determined that regardless of their mental health issues, a person cannot profit from their wrongdoing. In re Demesyeux, 978 N.Y.S.2d 608 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2013)

by Stephen Bilkis

In re Demesyeux, 978 N.Y.S.2d 608 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2013) the Surrogate’s Court considered an issue related to the wrongful deaths of 3 children and who was entitled to receive benefit from the proceeds of a wrongful death lawsuit. The case was tragic, as it involved a mother who suffered from mental illness, killing her three young children. While typically the parents would be a minor child’s next of kin, entitled them to share in any wrongful death compensation awarded, this case was unique because one of the parents caused the wrongful death of the children.

Background Facts

Leatrice Brewer confessed to drowning her three children aged 1, 5, and 6, in the bathtub of her New Cassel apartment on Long Island in February 2008. After drowning them, Brewer placed the lifeless bodies of her children on a bed and attempted to end her own life by swallowing a toxic concoction of household cleaning chemicals. When this attempt failed to claim her life, Brewer resorted to jumping out of her second-story window. She survived.

Published on: April 26, 2023

Court considered who was the legal owner of financial accounts. Kagan v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., Inc., 62 Misc. 3d 1203 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

A beneficiary designation is a legal arrangement that allows an individual to specify who will receive their assets, such as life insurance proceeds, retirement account funds, or other payable-on-death accounts, upon their death. It is a critical aspect of estate planning, providing a clear directive for the distribution of specific assets outside the probate process.

The mental capacity to change beneficiary designations is significant because it ensures that individuals making such decisions are of sound mind and capable of understanding the implications of their choices. Mental capacity, in this context, refers to an individual’s ability to comprehend the nature and extent of their property, understand who might have a claim to their assets, and appreciate the consequences of designating or changing beneficiaries.

In the absence of proper mental capacity, challenges may arise regarding the validity of beneficiary changes. If someone is deemed mentally incapable at the time of altering a designation, it could lead to disputes, particularly if other interested parties argue that the changes were made under duress, coercion, or when the individual lacked the capacity to make informed decisions. Ensuring mental capacity during the modification of beneficiary designations helps maintain the integrity of the estate planning process and reduces the likelihood of legal contests surrounding these decisions.