New York City

Published on: July 5, 2012

Petioner for Estate Claims Lawyer Misappropriated Funds

by Stephen Bilkis

Sometime in 1985, the respondent was retained by a woman to probate the Last Will and Testament of her deceased mother. The respondent accepted the retainer with full knowledge that the Will would have to be probated in the Court (for estate administration or will contest; estate litigation) in which he was employed. Thereafter, the respondent failed to apply to the Chief Administrator of the Courts for permission to engage in the private practice of law with respect to the subject estate, as follows:

In May of 1985, the respondent acting as the attorney for the estate, filed a probate petition and other relevant papers in the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, but, in doing so, concealed the fact that he was the attorney for the estate.

On 6 June 1985, the subject Will was admitted to probate and an administratrix was appointed. The respondent was paid the sum of $1,200 for his legal services.

Published on: July 3, 2012

Court Decides Question of Domicile of Testator

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman who lived for thirty years with her niece in New York executed a will sometime on February 5, 1955. In will, she distributed her estate to her son who was a resident of Wayne County and her niece who was a resident of New York County. The woman just before her death stayed with her son at his home in Wayne County.

He filed a petition for probate in Wayne County. The niece who was a legatee in the will filed an objection to the probate of the will. Her objection centers on whether or not the Surrogate’s Court of Wayne County has jurisdiction over the probate petition seeing as the domicile of the testator, her aunt was New York.

Before deciding on the issue of whether or not the Surrogate’s Court of Wayne County has jurisdiction over this probate proceeding, the Court decided on the question of whether or not the niece who filed the objection is an interested party who alone can filed objections to a probate proceeding.

Published on: July 2, 2012

Court Holds Executrix was Negligent

by Stephen Bilkis

Two men were business partners. In 1925, one partner filed a suit to compel his business partner to account for the properties of the partnership in his keeping. The partner who sued contended that his business partner diverted the profits of their business.

While the suit for accounting was pending, the business partner died who was sued died. He left a will which was probated. An executrix was appointed in the will and approved by the probate court. A couple stood as sureties for the fiduciary bond of the executrix.

Soon, the surety also died and he also left a will which was admitted into probate. In 1932 the surety’s estate was settled.

Published on: July 1, 2012

Court Hears Allegations of Fraud and Undue Infuence

by Stephen Bilkis

A petition for probate was filed. A contestant came forward in the probate proceeding contesting the due execution of the will and contesting as well the testamentary capacity of the testator. The contestant in his objection made general allegations of fraud and undue influence against the proponent of the will.

The proponent of the will then filed a motion for a bill of particulars. He demands that the party contesting the will be made to state specifically the acts or omissions as well as the time, the date, and the place where the specific acts of fraud and undue influence were perpetrated by him against the testator.

The Court is faced with the question of the extent a proponent may require a will contestant to provide specific and particular details of the fraud and undue influence he claims were committed by the proponent.

Published on: June 30, 2012

Will Contest Filed Based on Domocile of Decedent

by Stephen Bilkis

A citizen of the United States and resident of Kings County had lived most of his life in Kings County and has acquired properties and interests there. However, in the last years of his life he has lived in Casablanca in the Northern African French Protectorate of Morocco.

The Surrogate’s Court of Kings County entertained the probate petition but soon a will contestant appeared and filed his objection stating that the testator was already domiciled in Casablanca, Morocco at the time of his death.

The petitioner and the will contestant agreed to reserve the issue of determining the domicile of the testator until after the executor has filed a preliminary accounting/inventory of the properties comprising the estate of the testator.

Published on: June 29, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction Issue Regarding Probate Proceedings

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman died in October 1951. She executed a last will and testament nine years earlier in 1942. This will was submitted for probate and was admitted into probate in St. Lawrence County. The legatees of a more recent will allegedly executed by the woman in June 1951 four months prior to her death, was also submitted for probate in Kings County.

The woman was born in St. Lawrence County. The testator was a licensed public school teacher and she has been assigned in various public schools up and down St. Lawrence County until she was thirty-three years old. St. Lawrence is her domicile of origin. In two periods of her life from February 1898 until September 1926 and again from March 1928 until January 1935, the woman was assigned in different schools in the different counties of New York.

When she got married, she lived with her husband for years in Lincoln, Nebraska. Later, in 1929, she and her husband left Lincoln, Nebraska and moved back to Brooklyn, New York. They later moved to a new house on Island Park, Long Island also in New York. A New York Probate Lawyer said until much later, when her husband had died, she sold the two houses she and her husband acquired at Island Park, Long Island.

Published on: June 28, 2012

Petitioners Request Letters of Administration

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman died on October 26, 2000. The alleged last will and testament was executed on March 23, 1995. Under the last will and testament, the woman left her estate to her two sisters, or the survivor. She named her elder sister as executor and the younger sister as successor. The elder sister predeceased the woman without issue. As a result, the entire estate was passed to the younger sister.

In 2005, the younger sister petitioned for the appointment of a guardian of her property. The court, finding that the younger sister had a history of poor judgment with regard to her real and personal property management, appointed the petitioners, a niece, and a friend, as guardians of the woman’s property.

A New York Probate Lawyer said in May, 2007, a judge authorized the petitioners to petition to probate the 1995 will. By this time, the original could not be located and the petitioners petitioned to probate a copy of the 1995 will as a lost will. The affidavit of the friend in support states that she located the copy among the woman’s important papers after her death. While the deceased woman must have had the original will, her house had been sold and the purchaser threw away all of the deceased woman’s papers. The affirmation of the deceased woman’s friend states that after the woman’s death, her home was taken over by her former handyman who threw away all of her papers.

Published on: June 27, 2012

Court Discusses Decedent’s Endowment Fund

by Stephen Bilkis

The wife of a chemical engineering professor left a piece of real property which comprised a substantial portion of her estate worth around $2,800,000 to a polytechnic university. She also left the sum of $2,000,000 as a charitable endowment gift to the same polytechnic university provided that it shall be used as an award to the Distinguished Professorship of Chemical Engineering. A New York Probate Lawyer said the rest of her estate was given as a gift to be used to fund graduate research fellowships or an endowment fund. According to her last will and testament, these cash sums should be restricted to the uses she had enumerated and trusts should be created and the income from the trusts can be used by the same university for general purposes to construct or acquire a building in the name of her late husband.

The woman’s husband was a professor of chemical engineering at the polytechnic university; they lived in the university and spent most of their lives at the university. She also left one quarter of her residual estate worth $126,000,000 to the university as a gift under the same conditions.

The will was probated and the executors rendered their accounting in 2003. In total, the polytechnic university received over $130,000,000 under the woman’s will and the university held $70,400,000 in an endowment fund in her husband’s name with the restrictions stated.

Published on: June 26, 2012

Ex-Wife Files a Claim Against the Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 3 March 1994, a decedent died. He was survived by his ex-wife and their four children. Under the decedent’s will dated 3 August 1988, he left his estate to the daughter (“the daughter”) of one of his sons (“son-one”).

On 3 November 1994, the will was admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued to the son-one’s wife, the nominated executor.

Published on: June 25, 2012

Court Discusses Whether a No-Contest Clause Only Applies to Heirs

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman executed a will two weeks before she died in September 1992. She left an estate worth $2,000,000. Her will was offered for probate by the executors. During the proceedings, it was discovered that the woman filed with the Surrogate’s Court a prior will dated July 1992. The provisions of the 1992 did not provide for cash gifts to the attorney who drafted the will or to his wife who testified as to the due execution of the will, unlike the September 1992 will.

The charitable foundation contends that if the September 1992 will is found to have not been duly executed or if fraud or undue influence were brought to bear on the testator in the September 1992 will so as to also make bequests to the lawyer and his wife in her will, the residual estate which will be put in trust for the foundation would have been bigger.

The charitable foundation wishes to object to the probate of the September 1992 will but the will also contains a provision that if any of the beneficiaries of the will shall object to the probate of the will, the legacy made for them shall be revoked. A New York Probate Lawyer said this kind of provision is called an “in terrorem” or non-contest clause. It is meant to put the fear of disinheritance in the heart of those who were named beneficiaries in the will so that the estate will not be reduced by having to spend on legal costs.