Staten Island

Published on: April 30, 2012

Court Validates a Will

by Stephen Bilkis

A man filed a motion to withdraw a waiver and consent he did for the legal validation of his cousins will. And, this motion is opposed by the primary representative of the estate and the four charities who are the beneficiaries under certain instruction.

This happened five months after the death of his cousin, he did a waiver and consent; however, an attorney appeared for him a month after, and this is also the return date of the citation in this proceeding, and indicated that he wanted to withdraw his consent for the legal processing of validation of the will. The assets consists of personal property valued more than a million.

The instruction was done when his cousin was about 95 years old. The single page, two-sided tool is a downloadable legal form and does not appear to be attorney supervised. The opposite side of the form shows his shaky and weak signature, and the signature of the two witnesses. One of those witnesses now serves as a primary person appointed to perform the will and formerly served as one of legal guardians. Apparently, the other witness was an aide at the facility where she resided at the time she signed the instruction.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Children Sue Stepmother for Mishandling Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

According to reports from a surrogate’s court, a decedent was survived by his wife, and two children from a previous marriage. In his last will and testament, he had chosen his wife to act as estate administrator. Upon his death, the will was submitted to probate court. The court named the wife as the estate administrator in the letter of testamentary.

Before the decedent’s death and months after the wife was accorded as estate administrator, she exercised her functions. It was asserted to be true that she made several transactions which resulted to lessen the funds of the contested estate. A New York Probate Lawyer said the wife have made repeated fund transfers from an alleged joint account to her own account; paid her personal bills and expenses thru multiple on-line transfers from decedent’s personal accounts in a certain bank; and checks payable to her decedent’s husband were signed, endorsed and deposited to her account.

The decedent’s children, with the help of their probate lawyers filed a case contesting the earlier decision of the court in naming the wife as the appointed executor. They reasoned out that she was unfit to carry out the terms of the contested will by virtue of dishonesty, by not providing their needs, by shallow understanding of good will and by thoughtlessly or carelessly expending of their funds. Queens Probate Lawyers said they asked the court to appoint decedent’s son as the executor instead of the wife. They submitted to the court a written document of the decedent’s therapist. The therapist testified under oath and sustained the allegations of the decedent’s children. The estate litigation lawyers further make clear that the case under litigation was not a subject for time consuming dispute. Children’s funds were at stake. The wife was guilty of a series of acts-any one of which, the court has the authority to give an order to remove the wife as executor in an earliest time.

Published on: April 21, 2012

Widow Thinks Estate Taxes Should Not be Taken Out

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

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 18, 2012

Appellants Contend that Court Does Not have Proper Jurisdiction in Prior Ruling

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellants of a probate case have filed for an objection against the original ruling of probate by the court. The court did not accept the objections of the appellants.

According to the objections of the appellants, they asserted that the surrogate court should have used its authority to decide on the matter of estate’s original probate due to the fact that another court already had previous jurisdiction over it. The appellants further argue that the original order for probate had already been settled in a foreign country. Such foreign proceeding was concluded by the court as possibly replicated in the city.

The decedent’s will was executed in the city in which the decedent, also known as the testator, has lived. That will and testament revokes all the previous wills that have been written by the testator. The will contains instructions on the funeral expenses and debt payments. The remaining assets after the previous expenses are deducted shall be awarded to the former wife of the testator and another party. The male respondent of this court proceeding was identified as the executor of the will.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Court Hears Will Contest Over Real Property Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

A decedent died on 26 February 2009 and was survived by his two children. On 3 August 2009, the decedent’s last will and testament dated 9 February 2009 was admitted to probate (estate litigation, estate administration or will contest) and letters testamentary were issued. The will provided, among other things, that the named executor in the will would have the right to live in the decedent’s home for the remainder of his life and directions for the distribution of the remainder either after the named executor’s death or upon his vacating of the premises.

Thereafter, alleged creditors of the decedent’s estate petitioned the court for a summary judgment issued in their favor.

The petitioners based their assertion on a document entitled, “Sales Agreement,” dated April 29, 2006, between the decedent, who is defined in the agreement as “Seller”, and the petitioners, who are defined as “Buyers.” The petitioners alleged that by the terms of the agreement, the decedent granted the petitioners the right of first refusal to purchase the property for $1,600, 000.00 and that in the agreement the decedent acknowledged his receipt of two deposits by check totaling $350,000.00 that the petitioners paid to the decedent for the right of first refusal. A New York Probate Lawyer said the petitioner’s alleged that the decedent’s failure to offer the property to them for sale prior to conveying the property constituted a breach of the agreement by the decedent. The petitioners further claimed that the documentary evidence and the named executor’s deposition testimony conclusively demonstrated that the transfer of the property from the decedent to him was a fraudulent conveyance under New York Debtor and Creditor Law because it rendered decedent and his estate insolvent demonstrating an intent to evade his obligation.

Published on: April 10, 2012

Court Decides Payment of Legal Fees for Administration of an Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

A resident of Uniondale, on 26 December 1998, died. The decedent left a will dated 15 June 1979 which bequeathed her entire residuary estate to her nephew, who post-deceased the decedent. The Public Administrator was appointed temporary administrator of the estate on 14 April 2005. Decedent’s will was admitted to probate (estate litigation or will contest) on 11 May 2010 and letters of administration were issued, thereafter, to the Public Administrator. The account of the Public Administrator was initially filed on 6 July 2010.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the subject matter presented before the court is the first and final account of the Public Administrator for the estate of the decedent and the approval of the payment of fees to the attorney for the Public Administrator in connection with the administration of the estate (estate administration).

The Public Administrator sought the approval of the accounting, approval of the commissions, the fixing of fees for the services of the attorney and accountant, authorization to distribute the net estate to the court appointed administrator of the estate and the release of the administrator from the surety bond.

Published on: April 6, 2012

Court Determines of Undue Influence Involved in Will Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A lady testator co-owned an apartment building in New York with her two sisters. The bulk of her estate came from her share in the rent income she derived from the apartments and the value of the apartment building and its premises. She executed a will on September 16, 1997 naming her two sisters as co-executors with their neighbor. She gave legacies to her seven nephews and nieces, the children of her two sisters but she provided that the remainder of her estate will be shared equally by the three executors and in the event that her sisters die ahead of her, the estate will go to their neighbor.

As it turned out, the testator’s two sisters died ahead of her. The testator herself lived until she was 93. She died on June 18, 2006. Their neighbor brought the petition for probate of her will.

The nephews and nieces of the testator all object to the probate of the will on the grounds that it was not genuine; it was not validly executed; it was executed by mistake; it was executed without testamentary capacity; it is the product of their aunt’s neighbor’s undue influence on her; it is the product of duress exercised by their aunt’s neighbor on her; and it was procured by the neighbor’s fraud.

Published on: April 5, 2012

Court Determines if it has Proper Jurisdiction for Probate

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the only issue that has to be determined by the court is whether or not it has jurisdiction to entertain the probate of the decedent’s last will and testament.

The facts of the case state that the decedent was a resident of New York when he executed his last will and testament. The said will was executed in New York on March 24, 1974 and the executor assigned is also from New York. A few months after the will was executed and during the same year, the testator was removed from his residence in New York by his niece because he needed personal care and attention due to old age and sickness. From New York the decedent was then transferred to the place of residence of the niece which is in Pennsylvania. The following year, the niece was able to get an appointment as guardian of the decedent from a court in Pennsylvania based on the fact that the decedent then is already incompetent. The guardian later removed all the personal properties in New York leaving only the house owned by the decedent as the only estate left in New York.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that upon the death of the decedent, the named executor in the will sent to the guardian the copy of the will executed by the decedent. The lawyer of the guardian wrote back and stated in the letter that the guardian had already applied for letters of administration and that his client treats the said will as invalid. The court of Pennsylvania later on also issued the letters of administration applied for by the guardian. This started the will contest between the parties.

Published on: April 3, 2012

Court Decides Will Contest Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

A father of three children died on December 26, 1960 in New York County. In January of the following year, a petition for the probate of two presented wills was filed in New York County Court. The petition was filed by the special guardian for the children alleged that the deceased father resided at Park Avenue, New York City and that his legal heirs were his three children.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the petition stated that the deceased father and his former wife had been married and divorced. The special guardian did not believe that the former wife was an heir of the deceased. The will presented claimed to be the deceased father’s will, bestowed the former wife with $50,000. Supplement to the presented will nominated the former wife as guardian of the infant son of the deceased. The former wife carried out a paper including an appearance in the trial, a waiver of the service of citation and a specific consent that the presented will be admitted for validation. The attorneys representing the former wife filed an authorized notice of appearance on her behalf as the appointed guardian of the infant son of the deceased. The special guardian representing the infant filed his report recommending validation. Since there was no objection to the validation of the will was filed, the proof was taken in respect of implementing the presented will, the capacity to execute a will of the deceased and his freedom from control. Thereafter, a ruling was made admitting the presented will for validation and granting letters of administration and letters of trusteeship.

On June 1961, the former wife filed a petition individually and as general guardian of the infant son, asking that the validation ruling be opened, cleared out and set aside. The stated basis is that the deceased father was not a resident of New York County but was a resident of Suffolk County. The petition in the revocation trial admits that all the facts upon which the former wife’s accusations of residence are based within her knowledge at the time she appeared in the validation trial and consented for validation. She alleges that she did not notice that the trial was in New York County. Staten Island Probate Lawyers he failure to notice occurred when a copy of the citation was served to her, when she later executed a waiver and consent to the validation and when she executed an affidavit and acknowledged an authorization for her attorneys to appear for her as the appointed guardian. The attorneys then appearing do not represent the former wife on the application. The administrators of the will made an appeal to dismiss the petition.

Published on: April 3, 2012

Court Discusses Fraud Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

Queens Probate 19

New York Probate Lawyers said this is a case being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the state of New York. The action before the court is to recover the possession of real property. The defendant is appealing an order made in the Supreme Court of Queens County that granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment that dismissed the defendant’s counterclaims to impose a construct trust for the subject property and the proceeds of a bank account.

Case Background