Probate & Estate Litigation

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Decides Real Property Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Roxrun Estates, Inc. et al, are the respondents-appellants, and the Roxbury Run Village Association, Inc et al., is the other appellant-respondent and defendants.

Background

A New York Probate Lawyer said in 1972, Roxbury Run Corporation proposed to build a 500-unit townhouse development in Delaware County. A declaration was drawn up which laid out the rights and responsibilities of the owners who would purchase units in the development, as well as the property owners’ association. The Roxbury Run Village Association was created for the express purpose of building and looking after the various common areas, including recreational areas, which would be utilized by the members of the development. Two types of members were included in the association. Class A were owners of improved property. Class A members received a vote for every improved unit. Roxbury Run, on the other hand, was entitled to three votes as a Class B member for every property they owned. By December of 1979, all Class B memberships were to cease, after an amendment was made to the original agreement moving that date back from 1982.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Hears Real Property Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the Bay Street Landing Home Owners Association is the Plaintiff, while the defendants include PDR Bay Street/St. George, LLC, Philip Ressa and Estates at Bay Street Landing, LLC.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer asked the plaintiff asked for a summary judgement for $300000 and interest. The defendants once owned 130 Bay Street Landing in Staten Island New York. Counterclaims were also laid by the defendants. Ressa was once a principal in PDR and a guarantor for the Promenade Fund for the HOA. He sued another principal and guarantor, Dominick Marino, and two others: Leib Puretz and Tovia Mermelstein. Those two moved for summary judgment in favor of the defendant. They also asked that Ressa’s lawyer be disqualified because he might need to be a witness.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Defendant Requests More Time for Appeal

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved Plaro Estates, Inc. as the appellant. The Assessor, et al. and the Town of Clarkstown were respondents, while the Clarkstown Central School District #1 was the nonparty-respondent.

History

Under the terms of 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2), the appellant made a request to gain more time for an appeal. A New York Probate Lawyer said the request was in regards to an order from the Supreme Court in Rockland County. The original order was issued on April 15th of 2011, and the appellant requested more time to perfect their appeal.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Discusses Estate Taxes

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the estate of Mr. Frank Wolf. The petitioner is the administrator of the estate, Betsy Wolf. Ethel Wolf is the respondent.

The Estate

A New York Probate Lawyer said the case involves the will of Mr. Wolf. Most of his property was left to his mother, while nothing appeared allocated for his wife. There was also no mention of estate taxes.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Court Orders Consolidation of Cases

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Homewood Garden Estates, LLC is the respondent, while Dena Kirby is the Appellant.

The Case

In this case, the appellant moved to have other appeals consolidated. The two appeals in question were both logged in the Civil Court of the City of New York in Kings County. A New York Probate Lawyer said the respective dates of the two orders in question were January 6, 2011 and February 17th of the same year.

Published on: April 26, 2012

Court Decides Validity of German vs. U.S. Will

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1924, a woman died a resident of New York County leaving a will which was validated in New York County. In her will, she created a trust, the income of which was to go to her brother for life, the remainder to his next of kin, subject, however, to a power in him to make a different disposition by a general power of appointment in his will.

Her brother, the designated life beneficiary and heir of the power, was an American-born citizen who resided in Germany with his German wife and three German children for many years preceding his death there. In the fall of 1939, allegedly because he ‘was worried about the possibility that the German Government would confiscate the trust, he executed a will in which he exercised his power of appointment in favor of the petitioner. The will was executed in the German language and was formally valid under the law of Germany. At the suggestion of his son, the will was delivered for safekeeping into the hands of a notary in Berlin where it was placed in an office safe.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that in 1943, four years after the brother executed the will; the New York trustee of the Foster trust was served by the Alien Property Custodian with Vesting Order which vested in the United States Government the entire interest of the brother and his next of kin in the trust. Shortly thereafter, more than two years before he died, the building in Berlin in which his will was being stored was burned to the ground in a bombing raid and the will was destroyed.

Published on: April 26, 2012

Court Rules on Validity of Multiple Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman has petitioned the court to vacate the probate of a will of a deceased person whom she is not related to and to permit her to file objections to the validation. The deceased man’s will was admitted to validation by the court and the estate was distributed in April, 2006.

According to records, answers and objections to her petition were filed by the executor, a grandson of the decedent, and two other grandchildren. Following a conference with the court, the parties attempted to reach a settlement, but were unsuccessful. A New York Probate Lawyer said that thereafter the matter was submitted to the court for a decision on the papers, including a reply and an additional affidavit in support of the petition.

The Petitioner raises several arguments in support of the relief requested. Primarily that she is in possession of a later will, in which she is named executor and a beneficiary. She states that she was neither cited nor waived citation in the proceeding which granted validation to the 1992 will, and that she intends to file objections to the validation based on the later will. She also alleges that the deceased, who died while an inpatient at a nursing home in New Jersey, was a resident of Manhattan, and not of Rockland County as alleged in the petition which resulted in the validation decree, and that, therefore, the proceeding should not have been brought in this court. The Petitioner filed the purported will in this court and filed her petition to vacate validation. The respondents, by their answer and objections, allege that the petition should be denied because the petitioner is guilty of laches, based on her unexplained and unjustified delay in offering the purported later will for validation and in bringing the instant proceeding, which will result in substantial prejudice to them if she is successful. They further argue that petitioner is unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, because the 2001 purported will is not likely to be admitted to validation. They maintain that the 2001 document is suspicious on its face, that the deceased lacked sufficient capacity to execute a will in 2001 and that the 2001 document was the product of undue influence.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Determines Which Will to Submit to Probate

by Stephen Bilkis

The guardian of the decedent’s estate has filed for a petition and requested the court to allow the probate of the alleged will. The petition also contained that a fee should be established by the court.

The testator of the will and testament has passed away. He left his wife and 3 children his estate. The widow was named the guardian as stated in the decedent’s will. The widow at that time is afflicted with dementia. The two older sons of the testator were also named as co-guardians for their mother.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the two sons requested a probate of a specific will. A few months later, they filed another probate on another will and requested that the previous motion be denied by the court.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Was Fraud Involved in Will Execution?

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1958, a woman from Salamanca, New York died and left her surviving two sons and daughter, all of full age, and several grandchildren. A document purporting to be the last will and testament of the deceased, with a petition for validation was duly filed with the court. The will submitted for validation was drafted by an attorney of Salamanca, New York, a man with many years of experience as a practicing attorney and was witnessed by the attorney and a young woman employed by the drafter of the will. In the proceeding, the petitioner seeks permission of the court to withdraw his waiver of citation consenting to the validation of the will of the deceased.

The petition for probate of will was verified by one of the two sons of the deceased, and accompanying the petition was the waiver and consent of the son which consents that the paper writing bearing date 1955 purporting to be the last will and testament of the deceased to be admitted to validation.

A New York Probate Lawyer said a citation was duly issued, addressed to the surviving daughter of the deceased, and proof of due service upon the said daughter and proof of mailing notice of validation to the other heirs was filed. The petition was verified; the waiver of citation was signed and verified the same date which also is the date of death of the deceased. The citation was returnable before the court at the court room in the forenoon of that day, but at the request of the proponent, the matter was adjourned and re-adjourned from time to time until the subscribing witnesses were examined.

Published on: April 24, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction between French and American Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

A son from California filed for an order dismissing the pending proceeding to probate his mother’s New York Will that raises an interesting question of jurisdiction. The son argues the jurisdiction of the court to prove the validity of the Will of a non-residence which requests New York to prove valid and invokes New York law on the ground that her French legal residency has assumed jurisdiction over her estate. The motion is opposed by the Petitioners in the proceeding, the co-executors named in the Will, who are presently serving as preliminary executors.

The New York Probate Lawyer said the mother who made the Will was born a French citizen in 1899, and she became a naturalized United States citizen. She was a New York resident for about thirty years. For approximately seven years she was employed in the law offices in New York City. During this period she worked as secretary to one of that firm’s senior partners. A lawyer-client relationship with that firm also commenced during that time. The French Ordinary Residence Card issued indicates that the mother who made the Will stated that she returned to France on October 24, 1971.

The New York Will which is the subject of the jurisdictional attack was drafted by the firm in New York she worked for. It was allegedly executed by the deceased in the firm’s Paris office in 1972, and there is no challenge on the matter. Both the petitioners and the son refer to the 1972 document as the New York Will. Both sides seemingly agree that this Will, whether admitted to be proven valid in New York or established in accordance with French law, governs at most the property of the deceased mother which was physically located in New York when she died, and that it does not affect property actually located in France, which passes under the French Will.