Staten Island

Published on: February 12, 2012

Court Rules of Letters of Administration Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The following estate litigation was filed by the proponent. The proponent in this case is one of the three daughters of the testator. In her petition, she wanted to revoke the administration letters that were given to her sister. Because of this incident, the two sisters of the proponent had filed a motion against the proponent in to prevent her from submitting the testator’s will for probate.

The mother and now the deceased had resided in another country. One of the daughters of the deceased had requested letters of administration. In her petition, the sister had asserted that her mother was named as the distributee of the property of the proponent’s brother. According to a New York Probate Lawyer, the petition also indicated that the bank handling the estate administration did not perform its duty to distribute the proceeds of the estate to the others.

The two sisters gave consent to the appointment of their brother. The letters of administration were sent to the petitioner while the other sister defaulted since she was not in the city during that time. But she did receive the letter.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

August 13, 1970, Julia Eckhart died leaving two children, Charlotte Eckart and Frank Darmody. In her will that was dated August 4, 1966, she left each of them the sum of $50 and the rest to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. The will was admitted to probate and daughter, Ms. Eckart and Mr. Darmody submitted intent to contest the will. This is because of the size of the estate distributed by the will. New York Probate Lawyers say that in the Estates, Power and Trusts Law, gifts to a charitable institution should not be more than half of the estate if contested by a descendant or parent. The law further states that the person can only contest if they are to receive a monetary benefit if the contest is successful as the beneficiary of the will.

Being the children of the deceased is not questionable. What needs to be decided on is if they have the right because they will receive a pecuniary benefit. The executor’s point of view was that the children did not have the right as the will expressed that Mrs. Eckhart, the deceased, did not want to give her children more than the $50, she provided for each of them. He relied on the case of Joseph Cairo as an example. The Cairo case, a Staten Island Probate Lawyer states, had the specific words that said that the deceased did not wish to give the grandson, Joseph Cairo, anything from the estate. The grandson was not going to benefit from a successful contest.

In this matter, the deceased placed her relatives in different levels as her children got $50 inheritance while the others did not. There was nothing that specifically or expressly stated she wished they do not receive anything more than the $50, she had appropriated in her will. The $50 in this case is insignificant. It does not show the intent of the testatrix if she wished to take away inheritance from her children. The law takes out intention with its provision. It keeps only what is stated in the will.

Published on: February 6, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Laurel G. Ellis died in June 1994. She left a last will and testament dated May, 25 1990. This will contain conditions in the bequest that favored her daughter, Florence. In the will, it gave 50% of the remaining estate after taxes and fees to Mrs. Ellis daughter and the remainder is divided equally between her sons, John and Richard. One would think it is unfair for the mother to do this, but with their history, you would understand why.

The previous will had the children sharing the estate equally, but after Mrs. Ellis’ husband died the sons’ relationship with their mother got worse and with her daughter better. There was even a letter sent by John to her mother that accused Florence of scheming to distance Mrs. Ellis from her sons. This was in March 1980. He even went as far as demand to have the old will reinstated and that Mrs. Ellis should not help Florence financially unless there is proof that she needs it. He stated in his letter that if his demand is granted, then he will not publicize the issue. A New York Probate Lawyer said John threatened to file a court case if what he wants is not done. In an undated letter to his brother Richard, he said the “estate would be in court so long that Florence would never see any of the money.”

In May 1990, she executed the will submitted for probate. Aside from the provision she placed in favor of her daughter, she added that her will is based on the “loving care and attention” her daughter has showed her and her late husband, unlike the behavior their sons showed. She said the will is a product of a long and careful thought and was not because of undue influence from Florence. Furthermore, in June 1993, she approached a new lawyer to draft a new will for her so that she could continue to express her desire to give the majority of her estate to Florence. The information a New York Probate Lawyer gathered said she was afraid her sons will cause trouble for her daughter. This is when the terrorem clause was added wherein if any of the beneficiaries directly or indirectly contest the will or any of its conditions, their right to their share in the estate is revoked, and that share will be divided between the remaining parties who have not contested.

Published on: January 31, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

In the handwritten will of Mabel Alexander dated March 18, 1952, she denied that she is the mother of Marjorie Alexander and Bernard Alexander. A New York Probate Lawyer said that she stated that even though Marjorie and Bernard were raised as her children and were part of her family, they were not hers. She stated that she got a legal separation from her husband Benjamin Alexander, and she was just providing his room and board. She also included a statement that they did not live as man and wife after August 1950 when they got the decree of separation.

Marjorie, Bernard and Benjamin filed an objection against the submitted last will and testament. Soon after Benjamin died, and the executor of his will replaced him as the contestant. As the law states, since the right to contest is a property right, it survives the death of the person contesting. A Staten Island Probate Lawyer said the court ordered a trial for the disputed paternity of Marjorie and Bernard, and the possibility that Benjamin may also have an interest in the will of Mabel. In this trial, the only issue is to be addressed is whether Marjorie and Bernard are children of the decedent and not if they are legitimate or illegitimate.

Mabel was married three times. The first was ended by a divorce in 1907. The second marriage to Albert Norwalk was ended when Mabel divorced him in 1922. He claims to have fathered Marjorie. The last was to Benjamin Alexander, who asserts paternity to Bernard Alexander. Mabel got a decree of separation for this marriage.

Published on: January 30, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Lillian Sandow had two wills. One dated July 16, 1947 which was the one presented to the court for probate, and the other one was dated February 16, 1945. In the February 16, 1945 will, there were two beneficiaries declared as sole legatees. They were contending the July 16, 1947 will as a forgery. From what a New York Probate Lawyer got from their claim, they are saying that the last three pages of the will which had the signature were authentic, and the first four pages were substituted.

The first four pages are the ones that contained the legacies and the appointment of the executrix. The last three pages of the signature of Ms. Sandow, the witnesses’ signature and a power of attorney. They cited this and much on a previous case of Hinderson’s will and Teller’s will. In both these cases, the mere allegation of fraud caused the will to be vacated. In these cases though, the court had established that the fraud was in stopping the filing of any contest against the will. It was not an attack on the will itself. They also failed to notice that in both cases, the fraud was established in the preliminary hearing.

The petitioners claim there was no fraud in the withholding of the earlier will, and allegedly they found the earlier will in the office of a lawyer, who was not connected, in any way, to the parties. They also said that they questioned the authenticity of the will the same night that it was read and one consulted an attorney about it. He was advised that not being a beneficiary without an earlier will that shows he was part of is not going to be accepted by the court. Staten Island Probate Lawyers mentioned that it was only after the older will was found that they felt they had a stand to contest the will says a New. They contest does not name the perpetrators of the forgery, but the words are directed to the executrix and her attorney as she is the sole beneficiary of the will.

Published on: January 28, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Edward Rogowsky died in March of 2001 leaving behind his partner, Peter McGarry and two children, Joshua D. Rogowsky and Mark L. Rogowsky. Reports reached a New York Probate Lawyer that Rogowsky executed his last will and testament leaving behind a chain of residential premises or apartments at Glen Road Southold, New York. According to further reports, Rogowsky made McGarry the sole beneficiary of the residential premises as well as all his other assets except for $20,000 worth of property to his two nephews.

On the same year, 2001, the Kings County court, seeing everything has been done in a legal and proper order, granted all rights to McGarry according to Rogowsky’s last will and testament. Unfortunately, Rogowsky’s two sons filed a case against McGarry on charges of fraud and other charges that are in connection with their father’s estate.

Apparently, Rogowsky’s sons were already going to contest their father’s will and testament in 2001 but McGarry made a promise that he will share whatever profit he will receive from the apartments in Southold, New York. But according to accounts no such promise was honored by McGarry. He in fact, he sold the apartments and the house in Southold in 2006 and kept all the cash for himself. Rogowsky’s sons also claimed that McGarry already found a new partner in life, forgetting all about their father and the promise he made to them about equally sharing the profits of their father’s estate. It was also discussed during the trial that when Rogowsky was still alive, he repeatedly told his sons, in front of McGarry that he meant to transfer ownership of the apartments and house to his sons. Further, McGarry allegedly promised that he will respect Rogowsky’s intention of giving the properties to his sons. Apparently that was what made McGarry promise the Rogowsky brothers that he will equally share all profits to all three of them. Sadly, no such thing happened and McGarry kept it all to himself according to the charges. Rogowsky’s sons’ actions to file a case against McGarry are based on the McGarry’s promise to fulfil the last wishes of their father before he died even though it was not included in Rogowsky’s will and testament.

Published on: January 28, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 12, 1992, Louis Rosen died in a mental facility in California, allegedly leaving behind his entire estate to Warren Silverman as his primary beneficiary. According to reports that reached New York Probate Lawyer, the last will that was left by Rosen was written during the time when he was already determined to be mentally ill. This means that the Will naming Warren to be the primary beneficiary of Rosen’s estate is invalid according to existing laws. Also, according to the evidences presented at court by the other surviving relatives of Rosen, Warren and Warren’s mother Miriam exerted excessive influence to the deceased making them the only people who had access to Rosen’s financial resources four years before he died.

Four years before Rosen died, Miriam already moved into Rosen’s apartment and took care of everything for him, including his financial affairs. This was confirmed by Rosen’s accountant because he claimed he personally saw Miriam “bossing” Rosen around. He also claimed that Miriam had access and even had control over Rosen’s bank account including his personal checks. This is one of the reasons why Rosen’s other relatives have filed a case against Warren saying that the only reason why Rosen had named him primary executor and beneficiary of all his estate was because of the influence of his mother Miriam over Rosen at the time Rosen was already mentally unstable.

The court also believed, upon seeing the evidences presented that Rosen was indeed under no mental condition to knowingly decide for himself anymore. Reports that reached a Long Island Probate Lawyers said that there are several accounts when Rosen was found lost and only in his underwear by the local police. The last time they were able to find him was in 1990 where he was taken to a nearby hospital for treatments. Friends and relatives also noticed the changes in Rosen’s behaviour, saying he was already incapable to keeping his personal hygiene. It was actually during this time when Miriam moved in and took care of everything for Rosen. It was also during this time, when Rosen made deposits, supposedly gifts to Miriam’s children amounting to almost $10,000 each. After that, he allegedly made a transfer of a staggering $1.5 million to Warren and Miriam. These supposedly cash gifts and other properties left by Rosen to Warren are what the other relatives of Rosen are now objecting to.

Published on: January 24, 2012

The decedent died a childless widow

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 20, 1952, the decedent died a childless widow. She left a supposed last will and testament that is dated April 29, 1929. This she tried to dispose of her estate and exercise a power of appointment granted to her by the will of her father. Another document dated September 13, 1929 was added and confirmed the April 29th will. According to a Staten Island Probate Lawyer, after a trial by jury both wills were denied probate. The reason given was that the testator lacked the capacity or competency to execute a will. She was not of sound mind. The Appellate Court also affirmed this decision.

The question now is if there was an error in the surrogate court to admit into evidence the statements of two witnesses, now deceased, in a prior lunacy proceeding. The Surrogate court relied on the Civil Practice Act that the statement of a deceased witness in a former trial or hearing may be used as evidence in a following hearing of the same subject-matter. The hearing for lunacy was presumptive. There was no other evidence so it was admissible but not conclusive.

This is the history obtained by a New York Probate Lawyer about the decedent . Her husband died in 1927, when she was 53 years old. Before long, she was showing erratic and distraught behavior. She was presenting abnormal habits and conduct, which included alcohol abuse. Her condition became so bad that between 1927 and 1929 she had been a voluntary patient at a mental hospital several times. Her condition still progressed and she was no longer able to take care of herself or her affairs. In September 24, 1929 she was admitted to a care facility as a voluntary patient because of this. She stayed there until she died 23 years later.

Published on: January 21, 2012

Court Rules on Will Contest between Siblings

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman died in June 1994. She left a last will and testament dated May, 25 1990. This will contain conditions in the bequest that favored her daughter. In the will, a New York Probate Lawyer said, it gave 50% of the remaining estate after taxes and fees to Mrs. Ellis daughter and the remainder is divided equally between her two sons. One would think it is unfair for the mother to do this, but with their history, you would understand why.

The previous will had the children sharing the estate equally, but after the woman’s husband died the sons’ relationship with their mother got worse and with her daughter better. There was even a letter sent by one son to his sister that accused her of scheming to distance the mother from her sons. This was in March 1980. He even went as far as demand to have the old will reinstated and that the mother should not help the daughter financially unless there is proof that she needs it. He stated in his letter that if his demand is granted, then he will not publicize the issue. The son threatened to file a court case if what he wants is not done. In an undated letter to his brother, he said the “estate would be in court so long that the daughter would never see any of the money.”

In May 1990, she executed the will submitted for probate. Aside from the provision she placed in favor of her daughter, she added that her will is based on the “loving care and attention” her daughter has showed her and her late husband, unlike the behavior their sons showed. She said the will is a product of a long and careful thought and was not because of undue influence from the daughter. Furthermore, in June 1993, she approached a new lawyer to draft a new will for her so that she could continue to express her desire to give the majority of her estate to the daughter. The information a Bronx Probate Lawyers gathered said she was afraid her sons will cause trouble for her daughter. This is when the terrorem clause was added wherein if any of the beneficiaries directly or indirectly contest the will or any of its conditions, their right to their share in the estate is revoked, and that share will be divided between the remaining parties who have not contested.