Suffolk County

Published on: March 1, 2012

Court Decides Estate Litigation Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On 28 October 2006, the decedent died leaving a will dated 27 April 2006. The will nominates two (2) executors. Thereafter, one of the executors renounced his appointment. The decedent was survived by his two adult children.

Under the will, the entire residuary estate is left to the decedent’s companion and the decedent’s children are disinherited. One of the named executors (petitioner) now petitions for preliminary letters testamentary.

The primordial issue (in the estate litigation) is whether or not the petition for preliminary letters should be granted.

Published on: February 27, 2012

Court Decides Will Contest

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman died and signed a will two days prior to her death. The will state that she left her entire estate to one man. But, she did have another will dated many years prior to her death. It states that she left her assets to her brother and sister, unfortunately they did died already, and it says if they died partial of the assets will be preceded to one of the Catholic Congregation and the remainder to her cousin and his wife.

The man filed a civil case to validate the earlier will, to which the other heirs from another will filed an objection. The eight day trial resulted on a denial to the motion, by which the jury found that the deceased person doesn’t have the legal ability to make a will and it was only done by influence. The man requests a higher court to review the lower court decision and again denied. The heirs of the late will filed a petition to legally validate it. They issued temporary letters and no objection has been filed. And the other man from earlier will seeks leave to file objections to the late will, a stay to pending appeal and an order requiring the temporary administrator to file a bond pending appeal.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that based on records, in order to file objections, the prospective objector must have an interest in the properties that would be adversely affected by the admission of the will to attest. The man argues that he has standing because he has an interest in the properties and would be adversely affected by validation of the late will. And, as an appellant, he has contingent interest in the properties. However, this is not sufficient to file objections. The adverse consequences must be the direct result from the admission of the will to validate. It is clear that the man is not adversely affected by the validation of the late will. The only ground on which he can objects to the validation of the will is that there is a valid later will, which is the earlier will. However, the argument has already been determined in the prior trial and been rejected. He also argues that the court should permit him to intervene under its discretion to permit any party with a fair or slightly possible financial interest to intervene.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules on Undue Influence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioners in this case have filed a motion for summary judgment which will dismiss the public administrator’s objections. The petitioners are also seeking the admission of the testator’s will for probate.

Before the death of the testator, he had been living in a facility for the elderly for many years. One of the two petitioners in this case is the current administrator of the elderly home. The other petitioner held the position of director of the same place. As co-executors of the will, the entire estate of the decedent will go to them.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that upon learning of the will, the petitioners have filed for probate but the public administrator prevents the action. The public administrator is obliged under the law to become one of the parties in litigation. The objections were raised because during that time, the decedent allegedly did not have the ability to draft a testament. The public administrator also made allegations that the contested will was only written because of the undue influence of the petitioners.

Published on: February 16, 2012

Court Decides Complex Estate Matter

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 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. The wife has made repeated fund transfers from an allege 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. Their counsel asked the court to appoint the decedent son as the executor instead of the wife. Said party submitted to the court a written document of the decedent’s therapist. A New York Probate Lawyer said that the therapist testified under oath and sustained the allegations of the decedent’s children. Their 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 the earliest time.

Published on: February 14, 2012

Court Rules on Complex Wills Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A man who died in New York City was survived by two brothers. One lived in Endicott and the youngest in Pennsylvania who drove to Endicott and arrived in the evening to attend his brother’s funeral the following day.

Prior to the funeral, the youngest brother suggested that arrangements be made to read the will soon. Shortly after the funeral a conference was held at the Trust Company. Present were the two brothers, the executive vice-president of the Trust Company; the counsel for the Trust Company; and an associate attorney with his father-in-law.

The testimony concerning what occurred at that conference is completely contradictory. Postponing for the moment a discussion of the completely opposing testimony, it is agreed that both the living brothers each signed a form of Waiver and Consent to Probate. These waivers were retained by the father-in-law of the associate attorney, according to a New York Probate Lawyer.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Chardbourne and Parke, LLP represented the people who are involved in a Will left by Renate Hoffman, deceased. The Will was executed by Hoffman in 1988 and named the German National Church as primary beneficiary of his estate. According to reports, this 1988 Will was strongly objected and challenged by Robert Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. who were the primary executors of a prior Will of Hoffman which was executed in 1972. This became a long and extensive trial in which the two parties, Chardbourne and Park as well as Warshaw and Chase Manhattan entered in to an agreement in which the German Catholic Church received a considerable sum of $3 million dollars. In addition to this hefty settlement, the church will also receive a half-interest in a trust from the proceeds of the remainder of the estate.

According to further report given to New York Probate Lawyers, Chardbourne and Parke filed a case against Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank because of unpaid legal fees when the former performed its legal duties during the German Catholic Church settlement. Unfortunately their case did not progress in court. The court ruled in favour of the defendants, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan. In 2001 however, Chardbourne and Parke filed for an appeal of the previous decision by the court. Warshaw and Chase Manhattan argued that the 1988 Will was not the correct one to be administered and that Chardbourne has acted knowingly on their own. It was also noted by Warshaw and Manhattan that there was further wrong doing on the part of Chardbourne and Parke, LPP.

The trial continued on and arguments were presented regarding the 1988 Will’s validity which was also again brought up. This is due to the fact that Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank refused to grant Chardbourne and Parke the legal or attorney’s fees. Warshaw and Chase’s argument was that the 1988 Will was only illegal but that Chardbourne and Park was already aware of this but still continued on with its execution. But based on reports, when Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank entered into an agreement and settlement with Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the latter already impliedly recognized the validity of the Will and the contract agreement both parties entered into. Still according to the court, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan allowed a considerable amount of money be given to the primary beneficiary of the 1988 Will which was the German Catholic Church with a half interest on trust as part of the estate. This was considered by the court as more than enough evidence that both parties agreed on the validity of the Will in question. The court also noted that there is no legal cause to deny Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the legal fees for their services rendered.

Published on: February 5, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Bessie Schlanger filed an appeal with the Surrogate Court to require payment of a legacy. Ms. Schlanger was to receive 4% of the remaining estate after taxes and fees of Sarah Pasternack. She claims that if the part, which is $10,000, is not paid to her account most likely she will not be able to enjoy any of it. She is saying she is old and needs the legacy. A New York Probate Lawyer mentioned that Ms. Schlanger said the other beneficiaries have received their legacies.

The answer given by the executor of Ms. Pasternack’s estate is that Ms. Schlanger in not entitled to be paid because she violated the terrorem clause of the last will and testament. It stated in the sixth paragraph of the will that if any of the beneficiaries or people mentioned in her will contests or does an act to contest the will, they will forfeit their right the bequest. It further states that if they testify against the probate of the will, then they will lose their right to the legacy. Their part will be, in effect, put back to the remaining interest and shared by the other recipients.

In the response, it is alleged that Ms. Schlanger violated in two ways. She tried to have Ms. Pasternack declared incompetent when she was still alive. This was the first instance. The second instance is in the probate proceedings, where even if she did not appear to contest herself, she conspired with another to have the will disallowed. This, a Nassau County Probate Lawyer maintains, can be considered as a violation to the terrorem clause.

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.