Suffolk County

Published on: April 10, 2012

Court Determines Appropriate Legal Fees for Probate Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In an accounting proceeding, the court is presented with the issue of determining the amount of attorney’s fees and accounting fees to be granted to be charged against the estate of the decedent.

Decedent is a resident of Nassau County who left a will that was admitted for probate by the Surrogate’s Court of Nassau County. Letters testamentary was issued to decedent’s daughter. The decedent was survived by his seven children. The will stipulated that equal shares of the residuary estate shall be divided among the surviving children of the decedent.

The accounting proceeding is the first and final settlement of account made by the executor covering a period of four years. The summary statement submitted by the accounting party showed the amount of $955,030.92. Some of the children of decedent filed objections regarding the accounting statement. A New York Probate Lawyer said in a settlement agreement entered into by the parties, the executor reduced her commissions for payments to the objectants. The agreement also stipulated that certain estate’s tangible properties will be given to the latter.

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 8, 2012

Petitioner Alleges Fraud, Undue Influence

by Stephen Bilkis

A man executed a will in October 28, 1970. In this will, ninety per cent of his estate is left to charities and the remaining ten per cent is left to his sister. In this will also a bank and trust company was named as executor of the will.

After the testator died, the sister filed the petition for probate of the October 28, 1970 will. But the sister also produced a purported codicil executed by the testator dated November 20, 1970. In this codicil, the testator allegedly revoked the nomination of the bank and trust company as executor and instead nominated his sister as executrix.

Two charitable organizations who were distributees of the decedent in the October 28, 1970 will filed objections to the probate of the will and the codicil. The charitable organizations also filed a motion for leave of court to examine the witnesses of both the will and the codicil, the sister, the bank and trust company and the attorney who drafted the will and the codicil.

Published on: April 6, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction of a Will Contest

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal filed in the Supreme Court by a party who objected to the probate of the will of a decedent in the Surrogate Court of New York.

The facts of the case state that the decedent was a resident of New York. Sometime in his life, he became a resident of Austria and it was also in the said country that he eventually died. The will of the decedent was submitted for determination in Austria and two years after, the said will was again presented to a Surrogate Court of New York County. A New York Probate Lawyer said that as per reading of the last will and testament, it established the fact that the decedent was a resident of New York and at the same time named a legatee to receive half of the estate. The legatee assigned in the will is also a resident of New York. The properties covered in the will also referred to the properties owned by the decedent and located in the State of New York

The hearing in the court of New York was objected to because of the question regarding the domicile of the decedent. It is alleged that the decedent was a domiciliary of Austria at the time of his death and therefore the court of Austria has jurisdiction in the estate administration of the decedent. Another issue was that the court of Austria has already taken cognizance of the will and in the process of adjudicating on the same. The appellant in effect said that since the Austrian court is already in the process of determining the matters involving the will contest surrounding the will of the decedent, the Surrogate Court of New York must no longer assume jurisdiction because another court which has the proper jurisdiction has already assumed power over the case.

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 2, 2012

Court Decides Legal Fees from Will Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

A rich man died in 1958 leaving a will and a codicil. The distributees of the properties and assets named in the instruments were his wife, two daughters as distributes and two other persons as executors. The letters testamentary were issued to the executors after the will was presented to probate by the assigned parties. Based on the will, the decedent gave the surviving spouse personal properties and also gave to individuals and charities named in the will. The daughters also received a large amount of money from their father. Legacies were also given to 13 individuals and the remainder of the wealth was placed in trust with the income from such investment directed to be paid to the widow during her entire lifetime. The will also directed that upon the death of the surviving spouse, the principal of the trust investment be paid to the two daughters who where earlier declared as trustees when the said trust was created.

Upon the death of the decedent, the executors hired a law firm to represent them in the Surrogate court of St. Lawrence County for the estate administration of the decedent.

A few months after, another law firm was retained and both firms worked on the proceedings and the tasks involved in settling the estate of the decedent. Since the decedent was a rich man and had many properties as well as investment exposures in many different corporations, the work entailed among others settling accounts and other transactions needed to facilitate the entire Surrogate court’s proceedings.

Published on: April 1, 2012

Court Rules on Fees to be Paid to the Guardian ad Litem

by Stephen Bilkis

The decedent, a resident of Nassau County died on January 24, 2006 who on October 24, 2003 created the Revocable Trust U/A during which he executed his will now offered for probate. The instruments were drater by the long time attorney who supervised the execution of both documents. Bulk of the assets were transferred to the trust while he was alive, thus, the will is attributed as “catch all” document. The probates estate is counted at $10,000.00 while the trust holds asets is close to $1,000,000.00.

The guardian ad litem for the decedents daughter claims for his services in the amount of $2,828.00, he rendering 7.2 hours which shall be taken out of the estate. The statute governing the compensation of guardian ad litem provides tht fee is payable in the following consideration:

1. the estate

Published on: March 31, 2012

Court Hears Case to Validate a Will

by Stephen Bilkis

The last will is accepted for probate but the co-administrator requests a decision to dismiss the objections pertaining to the account of the first daughter of the deceased. The second daughter of the deceased and her co-administrator join in their appeals of while the first daughter opposes the motions. The separate motion submitted by the first daughter seek for partial decision without proceedings on her claim to enforce the terms of the deceased of a prior mutual reciprocal will and an agreement not to revoke it. The co-administrator as well as the second daughter opposes the motion.

The mutual reciprocal will was completed by the deceased and his wife. The couple agreed to leave each other’s one-half of their net estates in trust with the remainder of the trust to be passed on another trust in equal shares to their two daughters. A New York Probate Lawyer said their residuary properties are left in trust with equal shares to their two daughters until the daughters reached the age of thirty-five. On the same date, the couple also completed a separate agreement not to revoke their mutual reciprocal wills without the consent of each other. The agreement further states that it will result to the benefit of their heirs.

The parties agree that there are no factual issues to be determined and that the issue of law to be determined is whether the mutual reciprocal wills and the agreement are valid and enforceable to support the first daughter’s claim as a creditor for a one-half share of their father’s properties. Westchester County Probate Lawyer said that consequently, no trial is needed.

Published on: March 27, 2012

Court Discusses Will Contest between Son and Stepmother

by Stephen Bilkis

In legal action arising out of a dispute between the individual plaintiff from New York and his stepmother from Florida with regard to the ownership of corporate stock in a New York corporation, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, and a judgment which granted four motion of the defendants to dismiss the action on the grounds of inconvenient forum. The stock in question had been owned by the father of the plaintiff from New York and the husband of the stepmother from Florida. The couple together had owned and managed the corporation for many years. In a will, the husband bestowed to his wife the corporate stock that had been bestowed to the son in a prior will. It was the offering of the August 1980 will for probate in a Florida court. Objections on the Florida validation had been interposed by the son on the grounds that his father had been incompetent and the subject of undue influence by his stepmother that led to the commencement of the lawsuit in January 1983. Although phrased alternatively, and in some respects inconsistently, the six causes of action set forth in the complaint all rest on the essential claim that at the time the father retired from the corporation, he had entered into an agreement with the son with regard to the disposition of his stock in exchange for the son’s promise alleged to have been fulfilled.

The said agreement states that the son would receive stipends for the rest of his life. Summarized briefly, the complaint alleges that the father had promised to sell and deliver his shares to the corporation and in fact did so, and that the corporation should be declared the lawful owner. That if it be found that the father had not delivered his shares in accordance with his agreement the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance. That alternatively, the father had promised to bestow the shares to his son in a will, which he would not alter until his death, and he in fact made such a will, the revocation of which in the 1980 will constituted a breach of the agreement. That if at the validation proceedings the will is rejected and the father is deemed to have died without a valid will or under a will not containing endowment of the stock to the son, the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance. That if declaratory or specific performance relief is not granted, damages should be awarded to the son from the stepmother in the amount that had been paid by the father under the stipend agreement because of her alleged tortious interference with the agreement between the father and his son.

Lastly, that the stepmother and several of the other individual defendants, joined together to cause the father to breach his agreement, activities in furtherance of this plan occurring both in New York and Florida, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages in the amount of the stipend payments that had been made to the father.

Published on: March 24, 2012

Court Determines Jurisdiction of Will between Florida and NY

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman died in Florida on January 17, 2985. She had assets in Florida and New York. Her will was drafted and executed in New York under the supervision of her New York lawyer who is also the named executor in her will. He is the one who petitioned the Surrogate’s Court of New York for the probate of his client’s will.

The testator bequeathed to her siblings half of the estate and the remaining half was bequeathed to the legal heirs of the testator in accordance with the laws of descent and distribution of New York.

The testator’s lawyer at first wrote to the Surrogate’s Court stating his opinion that the testator has changed her domicile from New York to Florida. Later, he changed his mind and filed this application for probate in the Surrogate’s Court of New York. A New York Probate Lawyer said the heirs at law filed a similar action for probate of the will in Florida. They assert that the testator was domiciled in Florida. The testator’s brother filed the petition and asked that he be named as executor because the testator’s lawyer is ineligible for appointment as executor in Florida as he was not a resident of Florida.