When crucial terms are missing from a will, a court may construe the will to contain those terms if clear and convincing evidence establishes the testator’s intent.
Background
Eugenia Herceg died leaving a will, executed on December 2, 1999. The executor of the will was Columba Pastorino. The will included a residuary clause.
Jane A. Wilder died on July 31, 2014, a resident of New Hyde Park. She was survived by one daughter, Nancy Cave, as well as Nancy’s 3 children. Under the terms of Jane’s January 17, 2014 will, the decedent bequeathed her real estate, as well as her residuary estate, in equal shares to three grandchildren: Scott Cave, John Thomas Cave, and Jessica Cave. The will names Scott Cave as executor and John Thomas Cave and Jessica Cave as successor co-executors.
Scott Cave filed a petition for probate on September 9, 2014. Preliminary letters issued to him on September 15, 2014. The petition for probate lists as estate property the real property located at 1618 Falmouth Avenue, New Hyde Park, New York (the Falmouth Avenue property).
In response, Nancy filed a motion asking the court to issue an order (1) declaring that the Falmouth Property is not part of the estate of Jane A. Wilder; and (2) directing the to amend his petition for probate to remove any reference to the Falmouth Property, and to decrease the total value of the estate accordingly.
A pet trust is a legal arrangement that provides for the care and maintenance of pets that outlive their owner. See EPTL 7-8.1 (a). Typically money is placed in the trust and the trust agreement states who is the trustee and how the money is to be used. In some instances, the estate plan goes beyond providing money for the care of the pet. In some instances it even provides that the decedent’s home be maintained for the pets to live in.
In the case of In re Copland, Lenore Lewis Abels, the decedent, made extensive allowances for the care of her cats. However, the executor of her estate asked the Surrogate’s Court to approve a reduction in the amount of money transferred to the testamentary pet trust established under the decedent’s will.
Background
While this case primarily focused on an estate accounting issue, there was a secondary issue related to a revoked or lost will. Under the laws of New York State, only a testator can revoke their own will. In order to revoke their will, the testator must do one of the following:
In In re the Estate of Cridland, the administratrix of the estate, the decedent’s sister, sought to remove the restrictions from her limited letters of administration so that she could collect settlement proceeds from an action related to the death of the decedent, allocate the entire recovery to the personal injury causes of action, and judicially account for the proceeds.
In New York, before an individual or entity has the legal authority as the personal representative (personal representative, executor, administrator) to act on behalf of the estate of a decedent, they must petition the Surrogate’s Court and the court must issue them a court order called “letters.” There are several types of letters. Letters testamentary are issued if the petitioner was named in the decedent’s will to serve as executor. Letters of administration are issued if the decedent did not have a will. When letters testamentary or letters of administration, the personal representative typically has general authority to take actions necessary to settle the decedent’s estate.
Limited Letters of Administration are a type of letters issued by the court that allow the person to perform very limited and specific functions that are the best interests of the estate, such as commencing a lawsuit. Pursuant to SCPA 702, limited letters make be issued under the following circumstances:
Under New York law, when a child dies, a parent can be disqualified from inheriting from the child’s estate under two conditions. First, the parent can be disqualified if the parent did not provide support to the child as when the child was under the age of 21. Second, the parent can be disqualified if the parent abandoned the child. EPTL § 4-1.4.
In Matter of the Estate of Chatham, the administrator of the minor child’s estate was the child’s mother. She petitioned the court requesting that the child’s post-deceased father be disqualified based on abandonment and failure to support. The widow of the child’s father objected to the child’s mother’s petition to disqualify the child’s father.
Background
New York law provides that a parent would not be entitled to share in the intestate estate of their minor child if the parent did not support the child during their life or if the parent abandoned the child. EPTL §4-1.4(a). In In the Matter of Estate of Ball, the father of the deceased child argued that he should not have been disqualified based on failure to pay child support.
Background
In February 2003, the child died while in daycare. He was 20 months old at the time. The mother sought to prevent the child’s father from sharing in the child intestate estate. The mother and father of the child were not married. The child was conceived from a casual relationship. The father initially doubted paternity and the mother did not put the father’s name on the child’s birth certificate.
In New York a construction proceeding involves a petitioner asking the Surrogate’s Court to interpret language in a will or trust that is unclear. The language may be open to conflicting interpretations, the language may be inconsistent with other terms of the will, or the language simply might not make sense.
In In re Petition of Nadler, the decedent was survived by three adult children. Four years prior to her death, the decedent created trust that was funded by shares of a realty company. One of the decedent’s children is a trustee. Under the terms of the trust, the children as beneficiaries were entitled to the income from the trust. Five years after the decedent’s death, the primary asset of the realty company was sold for over $8 million, and a year later the realty company was dissolved.
The petitioners, the beneficiaries of the trust, petitioned the Nassau County Surrogate’s Court for a judicial construction to provide that because of the sale of the assets the realty company and its dissolution, there is no longer a need for the trust. As a result, the trust should end and its assets distributed to the beneficiaries of the trust. The petitioners argue that because the trust does not contain directions related to what should happen in the event of the dissolution of the realty company, there is an ambiguity that requires to court to make a judicial construction. The petitioners point to language in a related trust that allows for the court to step in to resolve any ambiguity related to the trust termination date. The petitioners also rely on the law which states that a trust can be terminated when its purpose ends.
New York law provides that a parent can be disqualified for receiving death benefits of their minor child for two reasons: for failing to support the child, or for abandoning the child. EPTL §4-1.4. In In re Lee, probate litigation was initiated requiring the Surrogate’s Court of New York County to determine whether the father of a deceased child should be disqualified based on failure to pay child support.
Background
In March 2016, the child died at age 14 while at boarding school. At the time her parents were divorced. The mother was the custodial parent. The father was ordered to pay child support. The mother petitioned for and was awarded letters of administration for her daughter’s estate. The father did not appear at the hearing and did not oppose the mother being appointed administrator.
In this case, the Appellate Division, Second Department, considered whether the Surrogate’s Court of Kings County erred in granting summary judgment dismissing the objectant’s objections and admitting the decedent’s will to probate.
Background
The decedent died on May 20, 2014 leaving a will dated March 28, 2014. The petitioner filed a petition for probate on July 22, 2014. Several people filed objectants claiming lack of due execution, lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and fraud. The Surrogate’s Court dismissed the objections and admitted the will to probate. An objectant appealed.
New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog