New York City

Published on: February 16, 2012

Court Rules on Will Contest Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The brother of the deceased contested to the validation proceeding requesting to dismiss the objections and accept the proposed evidence to probate. The will offered for proceeding claims that the estate shall be equally shared by the deceased person’s mother and brother, assigned as the executor. If either individual die before him, the surviving individual will be the beneficiary. Subsequently, his mother is already dead and he still has a wife.

The wife opposed the argument of her brother-in-law and brings in another argument to its proposed evidence. She state that the evidence offered to validate the will was not duly performed as required by the law. At the time her husband acknowledge the will, if such was in fact made, he did not declare to at least two of the attesting witnesses that the said paper offered for validation was his last will and testament. He did not request that said witnesses to be witnesses and if he signed the will, he did not do so in the presence of the said witnesses nor did he acknowledge to each of them that said subscription appearing on such paper had been made by him. In addition, her husband did know, understand or was aware of the content; meaning and/or consequences of the paper writing presented to him for implementation, if he does implemented the same.

A New York Probate Lawyer explained that in support of the motion to accept the will to validate, the brother submits his own affidavit, the testimony of a witness to the will, the affidavit of the witness and the affirmation of counsel. The wife also submits her own affidavit, the affirmation of counsel, the same testimony of the witness, a draft of the last will and testament and the affirmation of counsel.

Published on: February 15, 2012

Court Rules on Joint Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple executed a Joint Will that will make whoever is the survivor among them as the one to be given the entire property whether own individually or several and be the executor of the irrevocable Joint Will. The Joint Will further provided that whatever remained after the death of the survivor would be distributed to a trust, with equal shares of the trust to be allocated among their grandchildren and one of their children, their daughter. The Joint Will’s terms state that it is forever binding, and may be revoked or modified only by a writing subscribed by both parties and executed with the formality of a Will.

Approximately 8 years after the execution of the Joint Will and after approximately 50 years of marriage, the couple was divorced by judgment dated April 6, 2001. Several months before, apparently in anticipation of the divorce, the couple reaffirmed the Joint Will by executing a Marital Settlement Agreement, the terms of which were incorporated into the divorce judgment. The agreement stated, in pertinent part, that neither party would attempt to revoke the Joint Will, and provided quit claim deeds granting sole title of their condominium to the husband and sole title of their other condominium to the Wife. No further action was taken by either the Wife or the husband regarding the Joint Will.

In 2006, the Wife established her 2006 Irrevocable Trust, the body of which was her condominium. The Wife and her son-in-law were named as the trustees.

Published on: February 15, 2012

Court Rules on Complex Will Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman died and signed a will two days prior to her death. The will stated 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 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.

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. According to a New York Probate Lawyer, 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.

Published on: February 14, 2012

Court Rules on Case with Multiple Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

The issues being raised in this estate case have two aspects. One issue talks about the objection of probate on the last will and testament of the deceased. Another issue raised on the case was whether the main executor of the will had the right to request for discovery proceeding concerning the property owned by another party.

Before the writer of the will and testament passed away, he drafted an instrument which states that all his property should go to his niece. The niece named on the will becomes in effect the executor of the will.

A few months after the drafting of the first instrument, the decedent had allegedly turned over a deed of one of his real properties to another party other than his niece by marriage. However on the same day, the decedent drafted an instrument and identified it as his last will and testament. According to that instrument, it would revoke or reverse all wills drafted prior to the recent one. This includes the first draft that named his niece the sole executor of his estate.

Published on: February 14, 2012

Court Rules on Complex Wills Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A man who died in New York City was survived by two brothers. One lived in Endicott and the youngest in Pennsylvania who drove to Endicott and arrived in the evening to attend his brother’s funeral the following day.

Prior to the funeral, the youngest brother suggested that arrangements be made to read the will soon. Shortly after the funeral a conference was held at the Trust Company. Present were the two brothers, the executive vice-president of the Trust Company; the counsel for the Trust Company; and an associate attorney with his father-in-law.

The testimony concerning what occurred at that conference is completely contradictory. Postponing for the moment a discussion of the completely opposing testimony, it is agreed that both the living brothers each signed a form of Waiver and Consent to Probate. These waivers were retained by the father-in-law of the associate attorney, according to a New York Probate Lawyer.

Published on: February 12, 2012

Court Rules on Probate Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A rich man died leaving several properties in Central America and two States in the U.S. Almost two and one-half years later, a petition was filed in the court of a U.S. State by the Country of the deceased man for the order which is alleged to have been destroyed after the man’s death. That petition contains the further allegation that the man was, at the time of his death, a resident of the Country from Central America. The petition was amended in which the petitioner set forth transactions and proceedings with U.S. State Tax Commission wherein the petitioner was advised of the Commission’s disagreement that the man had been a resident of the U.S. State. According to a New York Probate Lawyer, the petition was thereupon amended to read that the man, at the time of his death, was either a resident of the U.S. State or a resident of the Country from Central America.

The petition against the U.S. State was to dismiss their petition for the probate of the will on the grounds that the involved U.S. State court has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding and if it has jurisdiction, that it should decline, in its discretion, to exercise it. The Petitioner Country requests a hearing on the matter of the deceased person’s residence and the location of his property.

Tax Law requires that in every proceeding for original letters appointed by in the estate of a non-resident deceased person, the State Tax Commission must be cited as a necessary party. The section contains other provisions to protect the State’s interest with respect to the collection of any tax that might be payable. The petition herein having been amended so as to leave open the question of the man’s residence, the State Tax Commission is taking no active part in the process of the proceeding. It is obvious, therefore, that the amendment of the petition represents not so much a change of mind on petitioner’s part but rather an effort to avoid at this time unnecessary legal action.

Published on: February 12, 2012

Court Rules of Letters of Administration Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The following estate litigation was filed by the proponent. The proponent in this case is one of the three daughters of the testator. In her petition, she wanted to revoke the administration letters that were given to her sister. Because of this incident, the two sisters of the proponent had filed a motion against the proponent in to prevent her from submitting the testator’s will for probate.

The mother and now the deceased had resided in another country. One of the daughters of the deceased had requested letters of administration. In her petition, the sister had asserted that her mother was named as the distributee of the property of the proponent’s brother. According to a New York Probate Lawyer, the petition also indicated that the bank handling the estate administration did not perform its duty to distribute the proceeds of the estate to the others.

The two sisters gave consent to the appointment of their brother. The letters of administration were sent to the petitioner while the other sister defaulted since she was not in the city during that time. But she did receive the letter.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Probate Lawyer, this is a case about the estate of Bertha Weil Fitzgerald. Reports that reached his office said that the estate was left to a number of charitable institutions and couple of churches according to her will. These charities and churches are Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York, National Society for Prevention of Blindness, Inc., The Fresh Air Fund, First National City Bank as Committee of the Property of Paul S. Ames, Jr., Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Archbishopric of New York and for Terence Cardinal Cooke, The Salvation Army, Heart Fund, American Cancer Society Inc., and the New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center.

According to the Will that was executed in 1970, all of these charities and churches shall receive each an amount of $50,000. The Fitzgerald Estate was valued at $2 million. The remainder of the estate shall be given to the Archbishopric of New York. However, Bertha Weil Fitzgerald had a 41 year old son who was legally entitled to the estate of his deceased mother. It was also said on the Will that Bertha did not intend to leave any amount or any part of her estate to her son, who was also invalid and incompetent. The son according to reports had been institutionalized since childhood and therefore was under no condition to care for himself much less to her mother’s estate. It was also noted that the grandmother, Bertha’s mother already left half a million dollars to her grandson when she passed away some years back.

This case was filed by the trust company of Bertha’s son claiming that the son, under their representation did not receive any notice about the Will of Bertha. They claim that the son was not able to file an objection to his mother’s last will and testament and that it was right to do so. It was also noted that by law an incompetent spouse or in this case a son can file for an objection if he or she was left with a sum leas than or not equal to the sum that were left to other beneficiaries in this churches and charitable institutions. It is also what is known as a case of excessive or too much charity.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

The matter of Max Zurkow’s estate, his daughter had filed a motion for the court to wait on admission of a decision regarding the probate of the last will and testament. She also asked for a time extension to file objections and time to be able to examine the proponent and for an interpretation of the effect of the terrorem clause or no-contest clause that is included in the will.

On the return day of the hearing for the original matter, the daughter showed and the proponent was directed to change the petition because the adoptive daughter of Mr. Zurkow’s predeceased son was not mentioned. Another data that a New York Probate Lawyer obtained was the daughter was not served with the supplemental citation and is claiming she only received a day’s notice that a decree on the admission of the will to probate is going to be presented to the court. The daughter got an immediate order to show cause to wait in making a decision on the decree.

The daughter had checked witnesses who are verifying the proposed will and now wants to examine the proponent of the will. Her allegation was that the son of the testator, who is also an attorney at law, acted as the decedent’s attorney, and the will being executed in his office. Further, she is claiming that the provisions of the will were altered to assign other benefits to the proponent and his family at her expense. A Queens Estate Lawyer cited that the daughter was as well saying that her father was 80 years old at the execution of the will and was relying on other for his physical needs.

Published on: February 9, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case regarding the Estate of Julia Eckart and the claims of her children regarding each of their shares in the inheritance. According to reports given to a New York Probate Lawyer, the children of the deceased filed a case against the last will and testament of their mother because of the insufficiency of their inherited amount against that of which will go to other people, entities and charities.

Unbelievably, according to Brooklyn Probate Lawyers, Julia Eckart left each of her children the amount of $50 each. According to her will, she also left no other cash or property to the rest of her surviving relatives. That is why the surviving children, Charlotte Anna Eckart, Frank Darmody and Frank Darmody filed a case in court that says that their mother made an excessive contribution to charity and that they were left with nothing except for the $50 each that were provided to them by her last will and testament. The rest of Julia Eckart’s estate, including her real and personal property have been assigned to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, which is a non-profit corporation in Brooklyn, New York.

Reports that reached Bronx Probate Lawyers, the court thoroughly examined the case according to the petition filed by the children. There was also a similar case before when a grandson was expressly disinherited on the will that was left by his grandfather. This was the Cairo case which was a long and hardly fought battle in court which now became a source of other similar cases as well. But according to the court, there should be two elements present in a case before it can be ruled as excessive charity. First, there should really be the intension to give too much of her estate to charity. Second, there is the intention to disinherit immediate family members like the spouse or children by the one executing the last Will and testament.