New York City

Published on: January 19, 2012

Court Strikes Down Will for Lack of Capacity

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 20, 1952, the decedent died a childless widow. She left a supposed last will and testament that is dated April 29, 1929. This she tried to dispose of her estate and exercise a power of appointment granted to her by the will of her father. Another document dated September 13, 1929 was added that only confirmed and confirmed the April 29th will. According to a New York Probate Lawyer, after a trial by jury both wills were denied probate. The reason given was that the testator lacked the capacity or competency to execute a will. She was not of sound mind. The Appellate Court also affirmed this decision.

The question now is if there was an error in the surrogate court to admit into evidence the statements of two witnesses, now deceased, in a prior lunacy proceeding. The Surrogate court relied on the Civil Practice Act that the statement of a deceased witness in a former trial or hearing may be used as evidence in a following hearing of the same subject-matter. The hearing for lunacy was presumptive. There was no other evidence so it was admissible but not conclusive.

This is the history obtained by a Manhattan Probate Lawyer. Her husband died in 1927, when she was 53 years old. Before long, she was showing erratic and distraught behavior. She was presenting abnormal habits and conduct, which included alcohol abuse. Her condition became so bad that between 1927 and 1929 she had been a voluntary patient at a local hospital several times. The hospital is a licensed mental sanitarium in New York. Her condition still progressed and she was no longer able to take care of herself or her affairs. In September 24, 1929 she was admitted to a second hospital as a voluntary patient because of this. She stayed there until she died 23 years later.

Published on: January 18, 2012

Court Rules on Will Contest Between Mother and Daughter

by Stephen Bilkis

A wife was named primary beneficiary and second wife of the decedent, and was named primary executor of all his estates in last June. But according to a New York Probate Lawyer,the decedent’s son, by previous marriage filed an objection on the last will and testament of his father claiming his wife exercised excessive and unlawful influence on his father and that the Will was executed with fraud. He filed an objection to his father’s will because he believed that the wife was not the rightful person to execute or manage his father’s properties and other cash and assets. Unfortunately no such evidence was found by the court and the wife was still and remained to be the sole executor of the husband’s will.

However, the wife went on and continued filing a case against the father’s daughter. The wife claimed that the daughter sent two letters to the father’s attorney and that both letters contained false accusations about her personality as well as her family’s reputation. They said letters were also sent to court as part of the evidence against the daughter. According to reports received by New York Estate Litigation Lawyer, the wife claimed that the daughter was objecting to the wife’s inheritance and the letters were her way to contest her father’s will. It was noted that the wife had already filed a previous case against the daughter to remove her from participating in her father’s estate. The court ruled in favour of the daughter saying that there was no sufficient evidence or any cause to bar her from such participation. That is why the wife again filed another case, still pursuing to remove the daughter from her father’s will and testament. The wife further claimed that the daughter and father conspired against her to remove her from being the executor of their father’s estate. However, the wife’s only evidence was the letters the daughter wrote and sent to the father’s attorney.

The daughter on the other hand, said that she only wrote those letters because she was asked by the father’s attorney for some background information on the mother and that those letters were never meant to hurt anybody or discredit anybody from anything. The court also said that it was also true that the daughter was not properly informed that her personal letters were going to be admitted as evidence against her in the court of law. A New York Will and Trust Lawyer was also informed that the daughter even signed a waiver and consent that her father’s will was valid and that the title as primary executor or beneficiary of his estate of properties were all executed legally and lawfully. These documents signed by the daughter with regards to her father’s estate and also with regards to her father’s chosen executor or beneficiary only made the mother’s defense stronger, strong enough to dismiss the daughter appeal to remove her from her father’s last will.

Published on: November 4, 2011

Chardbourne and Parke, LLP represented the people who are involved in a Will left by Renate Hoffman,

by Stephen Bilkis

Chardbourne and Parke, LLP represented the people who are involved in a Will left by Renate Hoffman, deceased. The Will was executed by Hoffman in 1988 and named the German National Church as primary beneficiary of his estate. According to reports that reached a New York Estate Administration lawyer, this 1988 Will was strongly objected and challenged by Robert Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. who were the primary executors of a prior Will of Hoffman which was executed in 1972. This became a long and extensive trial in which the two parties, Chardbourne and Park as well as Warshaw and Chase Manhattan entered in to an agreement in which the German Catholic Church received a considerable sum of $3 million dollars. In addition to this hefty settlement, the church will also receive a half-interest in a trust from the proceeds of the remainder of the estate.

According to further report given to a New York Litigation attorney, Chardbourne and Parke filed a case against Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank because of unpaid legal fees when the former performed its legal duties during the German Catholic Church settlement. Unfortunately their case did not progress in court. The court ruled in favour of the defendants, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan. In 2001 however, Chardbourne and Parke filed for an appeal of the previous decision by the court. Warshaw and Chase Manhattan argued that the 1988 Will was not the correct one to be administered and that Chardbourne has acted knowingly on their own. It was also noted by Warshaw and Manhattan that there was further wrong doing on the part of Chardbourne and Parke, LPP.

The trial continued on and arguments were presented regarding the 1988 Will’s validity which was also again brought up. This is due to the fact that Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank refused to grant Chardbourne and Parke the legal or attorney’s fees. Warshaw and Chase’s argument was that the 1988 Will was only illegal but that Chardbourne and Park was already aware of this but still continued on with its execution. But based on reports gathered by a New York Probate lawyer, when Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank entered into an agreement and settlement with Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the latter already impliedly recognized the validity of the Will and the contract agreement both parties entered into. Still according to the court, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan allowed a considerable amount of money be given to the primary beneficiary of the 1988 Will which was the German Catholic Church with a half interest on trust as part of the estate. This was considered by the court as more than enough evidence that both parties agreed on the validity of the Will in question. The court also noted that there is no legal cause to deny Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the legal fees for their services rendered.

Published on: October 9, 2011

There is a gift of Israeli bonds to the State of Israel

by Stephen Bilkis

In February 14, 1980, the will of Sally Lippner, deceased, was contested by her daughter Suzanne H. Epstein. Ms. Lippner died in January 11, 1980, and the will questioned is dated December 1, 1979. In Ms. Lippner’s last will and testament, she bequeathed all her property to five charities. There is a gift of Israeli bonds to the State of Israel. The will also state that her daughter Ms. Epstein receives no part of her estate as she had adequately provided for her in her lifetime.

The will further specify that in case that the will fail and becomes useless all the property will go to her trustees. In conformance to the trust agreement that she has set up while she was alive. The inter vivos trust was also set on the same date of the will. The paperwork says that the trust will be funded if in any case that the gift, devise or legacy made under the last will and testament made by Ms. Lippner will be ineffective. The trustees on the document are the same people named as executors of her will. Meaning, the trustees will give the income from the fund to the same charities she has named in her will, says a New York Estate Administration Lawyer. After five years, the charities then will receive the principal divided equally between them.

Ms. Lippner’s will included a “no contest” clause. A New York Probate Lawyer also said, from the records, it specifically stated that any person who will contest the will, it does not matter what reason will lose the right to any part of the estate which, would have been theirs. Aside from these papers documenting litigation between the Ms. Lippner and her daughter, Ms. Epstein, was attached. It had the history of the litigation to show that Ms. Epstein, although the only descendant was really intended to be excluded from the estate distribution.