Articles Posted in Westchester County

A New York Probate Lawyer said a man died with assets having a value of slightly less than $1,000,000, divided approximately equally between testamentary and non-testamentary assets. The proposed last will contains pre-residuary legacies to each of the man’s two nieces, his only successors, and to a friend.

The residuary estate is given in equal shares to two men, and their shares pass to their respective issue in the event they predeceased the deceased man.

Based on records, the main difference between the proposed last will and the deceased man’s penultimate will is that under the penultimate will, man B shared the residuary estate with man’s A’s mother and as the mother predeceased the deceased man and that last will did not contain an alternate disposition to her issue, man B would have been the sole beneficiary of the residuary estate under the penultimate will.

Continue reading

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, in this probate proceeding, decedent’s will was previously admitted to probate by decree entered on April 15, 1983. These were dealt with on an interim basis by the decree admitting the instrument to probate prohibiting any distribution of the legacies which were then subjudice. A hearing with respect to those issues has now been completed.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, the decedent’s will was executed on November 18, 1976. She died on June 26, 1979, at the age of eighty-one years. At the time of her death, decedent was a resident of a facility named Fort Schuyler House, where she resided since 1974. In addition to a large number of general bequests to individuals and charitable organizations, the will contains a bequest in the sum of $2,000 to the wife of the attorney-draftsman of the instrument, a bequest of $3,500 to the Executive Director of the above facility at the time decedent resided therein, and a general legacy of $2,500 plus the entire residuary estate to the Assistant Executive Director of decedent’s residence until 1977. The attorney-draftsman of the instrument is the named executor. Decedent had never married and had no issue. Her distributees are eight cousins, all of whom reside in England. No objections to the admission of the propounded instrument to probate were interposed by any of decedent’s distributees.

A Bronx Estate Administration Lawyer said that, the legacy to the attorney-draftsman’s wife presents a simple fact question within the well established perimeters of the Putnam rule. The proof on this subject established that the attorney-draftsman was admitted to practice in 1932. He first met decedent in 1967. Initially, their relationship was social. It gradually became professional with the attorney-draftsman regularly handling such matters as preparing decedent’s income tax returns. In 1972, the draftsman prepared an earlier will for decedent. A copy of this will is in evidence, although the original was destroyed upon the execution of decedent’s present will. The 1972 instrument contains a series of general legacies to cousins of decedent, other persons and a long list of charities. The residuary estate is left to St. Barnabas Hospital. This hospital is reduced to a $2,500 legacy in the instant will.

Continue reading

In this probate proceeding, the propounded instrument upon its face raises a question as to its conformity requiring that a will be signed by the testator “at the end thereof”. A New York Probate Lawyer said in the instant instrument, the testatrix’s signature appears below that of the subscribing witnesses. The problem is compounded by the manner in which the testatrix misused a printed will form.

Examination of the printed form reflects that after utilizing the areas reserved for dispositive provisions and the designation of a fiduciary, the area for the testatrix’s signature is ignored and left blank, as are the blanks in the printed attestation clause. After the blank attestation clause appears the signature of two subscribing witnesses and their respective addresses. A New York Will Lawyer said that each of these subscribing witnesses appeared before the Probate Clerk and testified that at the time of execution they were shown an instrument, the decedent stated it was her will, she signed it in their presence and thereafter, in the decedent’s presence and at her request, the witnesses affixed their signatures to the instrument.

Beneath where there appear the respective signatures of the subscribing witnesses is a printed “Affidavit of Subscribing Witness.” This affidavit is filled in with the testatrix’s name as if she were a subscribing witness to her own will. The line at the end of the affidavit is signed by the testatrix and a notarization of her signature is on the instrument.

Continue reading

A woman died and survived by her two adult children. Her son is married and had two children. Her daughter is the nominated administrator of her last will, as well as the complainant in this matter.

The last will was offered for probate. A New York Probate Lawyer said but, it was not drafted by an attorney nor was its execution supervised by an attorney. The last will appears to be a form on which information was inserted by typing. It is signed by the testator and three attesting witnesses. An acknowledgment of the testator’s signature was also taken by a notary public at the time of the implementation. Consequently, the file offered for validation also contains strike outs, erasures and handwritten interlineations. The alterations were apparently made by the testator.

The originally typed last will direct that the property of the woman will be given in the manner of partition. A New York Will Lawyer said it is stated that her daughter shall receive 50% of all investments & monies, such as bank accts, stocks, bond, etc.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, this is an application brought on by the administrator through an order to show cause to restrain certain corporations in which this estate owns shares from transferring such stock on the authority of a person to whom letters testamentary have been issued by another court. Before the court made its decision of August 12 1968, a hearing was held on the question of the decedent’s domicile. This was after an earlier hearing showed that proceedings purportedly brought by the proponent in this court based upon a copy of process served by her attorney to probate the alleged will of the decedent were abandoned. Instead of filing it here, the will was sent to St. Croix, Virgin Islands, by the attorney for the proponent.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, as pointed out in the earlier decision, the proponent’s attorney participated in the hearing in this court on her behalf on the issue of domicile; he cross-examined the witnesses and himself testified for his said client on that issue. However, only a copy of the will was exhibited here and it appears that proponent at some time, either pending determination of the proceedings in this court, or later, did file the will in the Virgin Islands Territorial District Court at St. Croix where it has since allegedly been admitted to probate. This court has not been given any copy of the papers and proceedings conducted there but it does appear that the St. Croix proceedings were pro forma and without a hearing or on notice or process (except possibly publication) served upon the decedent’s grandson. It also appears that the St. Croix proceedings were probably instituted by proponent in violation of this court’s injunction as set forth in the aforementioned decision and subsequent order thereon, copies of which were duly served upon her attorney.

A Westchester County Probate Lawyer said that, after the prior hearings and after the order was entered on the decision of August 12, 1968, the proponent filed a notice of appeal in this court on September 18, 1968, appealing that decision and order to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. This appeal has not been perfected. She was then given an opportunity on due notice and on due process served upon her, issued out of this court, to prove the validity of the will in her possession or to show cause why the estate should not be administered under the jurisdiction of this court by the grandson as administrator. Upon her default and failure to come forward, this court had no alternative but to conclude that such proof was not available and it accordingly appointed the grandson as administrator.

Continue reading

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, before the court is the first and final account of the Public Administrator for the estate of the decedent, who died intestate, a resident of Uniondale, on December 26, 1998. Decedent left a will dated June 15, 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 April 14, 2005. Decedent’s will was admitted to probate by a decree of this court dated May 11, 2010 and letters of administration c.t.a. were issued to the Public Administrator on that date. The account of the Public Administrator was initially filed on July 6, 2010.

A Nassau Probate Lawyer said that, the account filed by the Public Administrator shows the receipt of $87,102.28 of estate principal, which was supplemented by income collected totaling $4,935.98. This resulted in total charges of $92,038.26. This amount was reduced by administrative expenses through April 30, 2010 in the amount of $68,155.17, leaving a balance of $23,883.09 on hand. The Public Administrator seeks approval of the accounting, approval of commissions, the fixing of fees for the services of the attorney and accountant, and authorization to distribute the net estate to the court appointed administrator of the estate of the decedent’s nephew. In addition, the court must release the administrator from the surety bond.

The issue in this case is whether the account of the Public Administrator should be granted.

This case is contested probate proceeding brought to the court by the nephew of the decedent, A. Objectant moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment denying probate to the two propounded wills dated 19 October 2001. A New York Probate Lawyer said the proponent, B, cross moves for summary judgment dismissing the objections and admitting the propounded instruments dated 19 October 2001 to probate. The objectant has interposed his objections to the propounded instruments alleging undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity. Objectant also seeks to disqualify B as executor of the estate pursuant to SCPA 707.

On 19 December 2001, decedent C died. He was survived by five brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews of predeceased siblings. Proponent B petitioned for probate of two instruments dated the same day, 19 October 2001. Both instruments contain the names of L, M, and N as the attesting witnesses and O, notary, with a stamp and signature.

Both instruments nominate B as executrix; one of them nominates D as successor. Both instruments divide the estate equally between D and B.

Continue reading

In this Estate Litigation, the decedent, died in October 1999. Her will on 1997 was admitted to probate in April 2000. Letters testamentary issued to the decedent’s son. The son died in May 2002. Following his death, successor letters testamentary issued to the administrator in June 2002.

A Nassau County Estate attorney said that under Article THIRD of her will, the decedent bequeathed her residuary estate to her surviving issue subject to trusts created under Articles FOURTH, FIFTH and SIXTH. The decedent was survived by her son, a daughter, and a granddaughter, who is the daughter of the decedent’s predeceased daughter. Pursuant to the will, the share for the decedent’s son was set apart for his benefit in trust to be administered in accordance with the provisions of Article FOURTH. Letters of trusteeship issued to the son and another as trustees of the Article FOURTH trust. Pursuant to the terms of the trust for son, the trust terminated upon the son’s death and the then principal and income became payable to his surviving issue, subject to further trusts for any such issue under the age of thirty-five.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the son was survived by two children who are under the age of 35 and, therefore, separate trusts were created for the benefit of each pursuant to Article SIXTH. Letters of trusteeship issued to the daughter as trustee of the trusts for the benefit of the son’s children.