Surrogate’s Court, entered and admitted the document to probate as the last will and testament of testator.
The decedent, a physician, married his first wife who died before probate of the will.
Testator’s daughters from his first wife petition the court for probate the will testators have written in their favor.
The appeal concerns a family dispute over the last Will and testament of the mother. The court is asked to determine whether various actions undertaken by the respondent sons in relation to the validation of the Will violated the apprehensive clause contained in the ninth paragraph of the Will. Based on the intent of the mother who made the Will, the respondents’ actions violated the apprehensive clause and therefore the respondents have forfeited their right to take under the Will. Indeed, the apprehensive clause at issue was included in the subject Will in response to deteriorating family relations, and was both in anticipation of, and a forceful attempt to prevent, the very type of conduct at issue, conduct by the respondents that would delay the validation of the will, place the Will in jeopardy and harass the petitioner.
A New York Probate Lawyer said that the mother died in 1994. Under her last will and testament, the petitioner daughter, was named as the executor of the Will and was given the bulk of the real property and personal effects, and one-half of the remaining estate. The respondents are the sons and were each given one quarter of the remaining property. The children were not always treated unequally under the Wills, of which there were several. For example, in a Will dated September 22, 1986, the children were to take essentially in equal shares. A change started to occur in the late 1980’s, after the husband died. The period saw a marked deterioration in the relationships between the siblings, and between the mother and her sons, while the bond between the mother and her daughter strengthened. These changing relationships were evidenced by, among other things a letter sent to the mother her son. In the letter, her son accused her of engaging in an elaborate scheme to isolate and alienate her from her sons. The son demanded that the mother revoke her then-latest will (which was very favorable to the daughter); reinstate a prior Will which divided the property essentially equally among the children, and stop aiding the daughter financially unless she could prove need. If his demands were met, the son promised to keep the matter within the family. However, if his demands were not met, he threatened to take immediate legal action to nullify his mother’s then-latest Will as a product of fraud and undue influence and obtain the appointment of a conservator for the mother. He also intended to publicize the matter, an act loathsome to the mother’s sense of privacy. In an undated note in the mother’s handwriting, the mother wrote that her other son had stated that the property would be in court so long that the daughter would never see any of the money. Finally, in a Will dated May 25, 1990, the mother noted that the more favorable treatment of the daughter under the Will was based on the loving care and attention she had shown both her mother and her late husband during his long illness as contrasted with the less than exemplary behavior of her sons. Further, the mother expressly stated that the Will was the product of long and careful thought and her deeply held feelings toward her children and was not in any way the product of any undue influence by her daughter.
Westchester County Probate Lawyers said that in June 1993 the mother met with a new lawyer to discuss the drafting of a new Will, the subject Will. The mother stated that her continuing desire was to leave the bulk of her property to her daughter, but that she feared that her sons would try to cause trouble for her daughter. Accordingly, the subject Will included the apprehensive clause stating that if any beneficiary under the Will in any manner, directly or indirectly, contests the Will or any of its provisions, any share or interest in the property given to the contesting beneficiary, or to such beneficiary’s issue, under the Will is revoked and shall be disposed of by adding such share or interest proportionately to the shares of the remaining beneficiaries who have not so contested the Will.
A man from New York City executed a Will and its appendices and named a German Catholic Church his principal beneficiary in his last will and testament. The Will was challenged by the executors of a prior will executed in 1972. The appellant firm that represented the deceased man appealed an order from the Court that denied the appellant firm’s motion to dismiss the answer of the executor respondents of a prior Will. The executors of the prior Will were a bank and its legal firm. After an extensive litigation, the parties entered into a broad settlement agreement, pursuant to which the church received $3,000,000 together with a half-interest in a trust comprising the residuary property. The terms were incorporated into a decree.
The dispute arises out of the appellant firm’s application to fix its fee for legal services rendered to the preliminary executors of the Will. The executors of the prior will opposed the award of any fees on the grounds that the appellant firm knowingly presented an invalid Will and consequently committed other alleged wrongdoing. The appellant firm sought to dismiss the answer, asserting theories of inconsistency, bringing out matters already resolved and affirmative defense. The appellant firm further relied on the pronouncement in the court’s decree, to the effect that it appeared to the court that legitimate issues have been raised as to which of the Wills should be admitted for probate and that the compromise is made in good faith in the context of a legitimate will contest. The pronouncement is fair to the deceased in light of the circumstances and avoids any further litigation and unnecessary expense.
The court rejected the appellant firm’s arguments, reasoning that the question of bad faith on the part of the counsel, asserted in the answer, had not been litigated in the course of the proceedings and the quoted preamble did not constitute a finding of fact and that issues bearing on the award of fees were expressly reserved in both the settlement agreement and the decree until the instant application.
A New York resident executed a will in 1950 leaving one-third of his residuary property outright to a daughter of a previous marriage and the remainder in trust for his second wife. She was to receive the income for life and was given a power of appointment over the principal of the trust undistributed at her death. The will is silent with respect to the disposition of the principal trust in the event that she fails to exercise the power. However, it is clear that a default would result in the trust being distributed to the issue of the daughter of the first marriage. The surviving spouse moved to Ohio and executed a will in Ohio in which she exercised her power of appointment over the trust assets in favor of her son by a previous marriage and his wife. The son was also a resident of Ohio at the time.
A New York Probate Lawyer said that the daughter of the deceased died in 1970 leaving her surviving four children. The surviving spouse died in Ohio and her 1981 will was filed for validation in that state. Ohio employs a modified common form of will validation, in which only a limited number of people must be notified that a will has been filed. This class does not include those who would be adversely affected by the exercise of a power of appointment included in the Ohio will. Therefore, no notice was sent to the grandchildren of the deceased who would take in default of the exercise of the power. The will was admitted for validation in Ohio. Ohio statutes provide for a four-month period, after a will is admitted for validation, for an interested party to contest the validity of the will. If not contested within this time limitation, the validation shall be forever binding. Such period has long expired and the will was not contested.
Upon the application of the trustee to settle its account in the proceeding, notice was given to the grandchildren. The petition prays that the court direct the principal of the trust be distributed to the son of the surviving spouse and his wife, in accordance with the will of his mother.
In 1970, a doctor executed a will prepared by his attorney. The original will was retained in the attorney’s files and the doctor was given a conformed copy. The attorney died in 1972 and the doctor died in 1979, at which time the original will could not be located in the attorney’s files. The proceeding to admit the lost will for validation was commenced by the will proponent. The law provides that a lost or destroyed will may be admitted for validation only if it is established that the will has not been revoked; or execution of the will is proved in the manner required for the validation of an existing will, and all of the provisions of the will are clearly and distinctly proved by each of at least 2 credible witnesses or by 1 witness and a copy or draft of the will proved to be true and complete.
At trial, the proponent submitted evidence that the doctor did not revoke the original will since it was lost while in the possession of the attorney-draftsman. The appellant submitted evidence tending to show that the doctor had revoked the will by tearing it into pieces. Two of the witnesses who attested to the original will testified with respect to due execution but neither could remember any of the substantive provisions of the will.
A New York Probate Lawyer said that regarding the third requirement of the law, the legal secretary who typed the original will testified that she recognized her initials on the first page of the conformed copy of the will that was received into evidence. She also recognized that the type was the same used by her IBM typewriter. She recalled that the original will contained many provisions and that many bequests were made to foreigners. She further testified, however, that she never read the will after she typed it and could not remember any of the provisions of the original will. No other witness testified as to the contents of the original will.
A woman died in a nursing home and her will was validated in the court. The legal representative, whom she appointed, filed a petition containing an accusation of the jurisdictional fact that the woman died in her residency. It named, among others, the hospital as a beneficiary in the sum of $1,000. Waivers and consents on probate were filed, which included the waiver of a person who was designated in the petition as the sole heir of the woman.
Application has been made to the court to vacate the validation, on the ground that the woman was returned to her permanent residency at the time of her death and that the surrogate’s court did not have jurisdiction over the estate of the woman. Objections had been filed, after validation of the will, which were submitted, signed and verified by the attorney of the hospital.
A New York Probate Lawyer a formal order to defend was obtained and served to the legal representative and, to defend to the court why the decree of validation, should not be vacated. A cross-application was served by the legal representative to the hospital and its attorneys as counsel to dismiss the objections and the motion to vacate validation.
A son of a deceased man who filed an objection in a probate proceeding and the petitioner in an administration proceeding that was consolidated with the proceeding, has now noticed for settlement a decree dismissing the validation petition. He has also moved to have his application for letters of administration restored to the calendar. The deceased man’s daughter, the proponent in the validation petition, opposes her brother’s applications and, in effect, seeks to vacate her prior default in her brother’s motion to dismiss her petition.
When the father died, he was survived by three children. A New York Probate Lawyer said that the validation petition was filed provides for an equal distribution of the estate between the two children other than the son who made the objection. It appears from allegations made in the pending applications that the other son, the beneficiary of 50% of the properties under the will, died on April 2, 2006 and that he was not married and did not have any children.
The son who made the objection made several applications in the validation proceeding for relief based upon the proponent’s failure to provide requested discovery. The court’s last determination on the issue directed the production of certain documents by the proponent. Queens Probate Lawyers said that after the deadline passed without production of the additional documents, the son moved to dismiss the validation petition and the proponent’s counsel moved to withdraw from representing her, alleging that she had failed to keep appointments necessary to comply with the court’s directions. In the absence of any opposition, counsel’s application was granted and an order was entered, which not only relieved counsel from representing the proponent, but also provided that all proceedings were stayed for 30 days and that the son’s application to dismiss the validation petition shall be submitted without opposition at the expiration of the thirty (30) day period unless papers in opposition had been filed or an application had been made for an extension of time within the period of the stay. In the absence of any opposition or a request by the proponent for an extension of time to oppose the application to dismiss the validation petition, the court rendered a decision, granting the application on the grounds that the proponent had failed to produce documents pursuant to the direction of the court and had failed to diligently prosecute the proceeding.
A guardian for an old man is accused of gross negligence, malpractice, inaction, unlawful and breach of authority relationship regarding his conduct and/or lack thereof in exercising a certain right of election on the old man’s behalf against the last will and testament of his deceased son.
The claim for compensatory and disciplinary damages results, allegedly, from the defendant’s failure as guardian of the father to have taken steps necessary to have enabled his ward to exercise his personal right of election against an excessive testamentary gift for educational purposes. While this probate proceeding concerned the will of the son who died, the facts herein involved concern the estates of three deceased because, as will appear more fully below, soon after the son died, the mother died and shortly thereafter, the father died.
A New York Probate Lawyer said that under the son’s will, the father, at the time of the son’s death, then over 90 years of age, was one of the son’s two beneficiaries, the other being the mother. The petition for validation of the son’s will was later amended to describe the father as being then a person under disability because he was incapable of managing his own affairs and a request made, in view thereof, for the appointment of a guardian to protect the father’s interests in his son’s estate. By order the then Surrogate appointed the defendant as guardian for the father in the validation proceeding of the son’s will. Parenthetically, the defendant was a long-time friend of the family. In the proceeding, the mother was separately represented by independent counsel.
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.
A woman has petitioned the court to vacate the probate of a will of a deceased person whom she is not related to and to permit her to file objections to the validation. The deceased man’s will was admitted to validation by the court and the estate was distributed in April, 2006.
According to records, answers and objections to her petition were filed by the executor, a grandson of the decedent, and two other grandchildren. Following a conference with the court, the parties attempted to reach a settlement, but were unsuccessful. Thereafter the matter was submitted to the court for a decision on the papers, including a reply and an additional affidavit in support of the petition.
According to a New York Probate Lawyer, the Petitioner raises several arguments in support of the relief requested. Primarily that she is in possession of a later will, in which she is named executor and a beneficiary. She states that she was neither cited nor waived citation in the proceeding which granted validation to the 1992 will, and that she intends to file objections to the validation based on the later will. She also alleges that the deceased, who died while an inpatient at a nursing home in New Jersey, was a resident of Manhattan, and not of Rockland County as alleged in the petition which resulted in the validation decree, and that, therefore, the proceeding should not have been brought in this court. The Petitioner filed the purported will in this court and filed her petition to vacate validation. The respondents, by their answer and objections, allege that the petition should be denied because the petitioner is guilty of laches, based on her unexplained and unjustified delay in offering the purported later will for validation and in bringing the instant proceeding, which will result in substantial prejudice to them if she is successful. They further argue that petitioner is unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, because the 2001 purported will is not likely to be admitted to validation. They maintain that the 2001 document is suspicious on its face, that the deceased lacked sufficient capacity to execute a will in 2001 and that the 2001 document was the product of undue influence.
New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog