New York City

Published on: December 29, 2013

Husband Files Objection to Wive’s Donation to Chartities

by Stephen Bilkis

In this Estate Litigation action, the will of the testatrix bequeathed her husband a general legacy of $2,500 and named him as income beneficiary of a trust of one-half of the residuary estate. The remaindermen of this trust are charities as also are the legatees of the remaining one-half of the residuary estate. The husband filed objections to the probate of the will and challenged the bequests to charities as violative of Decedent Estate Law, § 17.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that negotiations between the husband and the charities resulted in an agreement by the terms of which the husband withdrew his objections to probate, consented to the admission of the will to probate and renounced and released any and all rights granted to him by Decedent Estate Law, § 17. Five charitable organizations agreed, in the same instrument of settlement, that immediately upon the issuance of letters testamentary the executrix would pay to the husband the sum of $26,000. The agreement stated that ‘except as in this stipulation and agreement provided, all of the provisions of aforesaid Will shall remain in full force and effect’.

The executrix now is accounting and has computed the amount of the husband’s trust in compliance with the provisions of the will and has deducted the $26,000 payment to the husband from the share of the residuary estate which, under the will, is payable to charities. IA New York Will Lawyer said certain of the latter have objected to this allocation of the settlement figure and they assert that the payment to the husband under the settlement agreement should have been deducted, in the manner of an administration expense, from the full residuary estate prior to the computation of the amount of the residuary trust.

Published on: December 28, 2013

Petitioner Raises Issue of Undue Influence

by Stephen Bilkis

In this Will Contest action, the objectants move for reargument of the Court’s decision. Petitioners cross move for summary judgment dismissing the objections.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that decedent died in July 1992. Petitioners, as nominated co-executors, seek to admit to probate an instrument executed sometime in June 1981 and two codicils. The sole residuary beneficiary began acting as accountant and financial advisor for decedent and her husband in 1970.

The issue to be resolved before the Court is whether this fact, without more, raises an inference of undue influence.

Published on: December 27, 2013

Petitioner Seeks to Dispense with Service of Process of Will

by Stephen Bilkis

A petition for probate of the decedent’s will has been filed with the Probate Department of the New York Court. The petitioner is the nominated coexecutor and son of the decedent.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that the petitioner has requested that the court dispense with the service of process upon the grandchildren of the decedent who are persons adversely affected by the exercise of powers of appointment in the decedent’s propounded will.

“The Official Form of Probate Petition (Form No. 7) lists among the persons to be cited ‘all persons adversely affected by the purported exercise by such will of any power of appointment.’ Section 1403 does not make such persons essential parties to the probate. This omission was not an oversight on the part of the Legislature or the Commission on Estates. The inclusion of such persons was considered and rejected because it might happen that the parties would not be aware of any power of appointment until after the probate proceeding terminated and then the omission of an essential party to the proceeding could constitute an infirmity in the decree. The inclusion of the parties in the Official Form was intended to remind attorneys of the prudence of citing them.

Published on: December 26, 2013

Claimant Brings Suit Based on Oral Promise by Decedent

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, this is an application by the preliminary executors in a probate proceeding to dismiss a claim asserted against the estate. This claim to one-half of the estate was made by the claimant simultaneously with his opposition to a decree approving a compromise agreement which would dispose of a heavily litigated protracted will contest. Under several wills of the decedent, including this last will, he would be entitled to a $20,000 legacy. The claim is based on an alleged oral promise by the decedent to make a will which would give to the claimant one-half of the residuary estate in consideration of the claimant’s conveyance to the decedent of a one-half interest in a house on Fire Island. This house was sold on January 7, 1973 for $47,000. The claimant asserts that his interest in the estate is upwards of $500,000.

A New York Will Contest Lawyer said that, a bill of particulars served in support of the claim alleges that the agreement was partly oral and partly in writing. The writing is a will dated January 18, 1965 which was revoked by a later will. There were several later wills, and deeds affecting the Fire Island property. The first deed made on February 2, 1963 was given to the claimant as grantee by the decedent as grantor. That deed reserved to the decedent a life estate. The next deed dated January 16, 1965 was executed by the claimant, creating a joint tenancy with right of survivorship in himself and the decedent. The third deed is from the joint tenants as grantors to the decedent as grantee. The will relied upon by the claimant bequeaths to him one-half of the residuary estate after bequests of tangible personal property and eight general legacies of $5,000 each and another bequest relating to stock in a closed corporation.

The issue in this case is whether the claim should be dismissed on the ground that the claim is not maintainable because it is barred by the statute of frauds.

Published on: December 25, 2013

Court Decides Legality of Charitable Gift in Will Contest

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, this is a proceeding pursuant to EPTL 8–1.1(c) for an order directing the method of effectuating a testamentary charitable gift in a situation where circumstances have changed since the execution of the will. The court is asked to apply its Cy pres power.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, the petitioners are the trustees of The Sailors’ Harbor in the City of New York, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Harbor’. The application is opposed by the Attorney General of the State of New York as the statutory representative of ultimate charitable beneficiaries. The petition requests permission of the court to relocate the facility presently maintained by the petitioners in Staten Island, New York, to the town of Sea Level, North Carolina. The Harbor is a charitable corporation established by an act of the Legislature of the State of New York pursuant to the will of the deceased admitted to probate by the Surrogate of New York County on July 10, 1801.

A Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said that, in his will decedent directed that there be constructed and operated in perpetuity a home for ‘aged, decrepit and worn out sailors’ to be called The Sailors’ Snug Harbor. The site selected by the testator was real property located in what is now Greenwich Village in the Borough of Manhattan, New York. In 1828 a special act of the Legislature permitted the Harbor to erect its facilities upon the ‘Island of New York, or adjacent thereto’. The Tilden Act (enacted in 1893), later known as Personal Property Law § 12, now known as Estates Powers and Trusts Law Article 8, was not then in effect. The Surrogate now has power, where a disposition is made by will and whenever circumstances have changed since its execution, to direct that a disposition for charitable purposes be applied in such a manner as in the judgment of the court will most effectively accomplish the testator’s charitable intent. This is Cy pres power.

Published on: December 24, 2013

Petitioner Seeks to Amend Charitable Trust

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, the testatrix died on April 7, 1970. Her will, dated January 30, 1967, was admitted to probate on June 9, 1970 and letters testamentary issued on June 24, 1970. In Paragraph SIXTH thereof she created a perpetual charitable trust to be known as ‘THE MEMORIAL FUND’, hereinafter referred to as the Trust. The beneficiary was the husband of the testatrix and died on February 6, 1961.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, the executors apply for a decree directing that testatrix’ will be deemed to be amended, or, in the alternative, construed to contain certain provisions which will comply with the changes made by Title I, Section 101(a) of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 which added Section 508(e) to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. It became effective on December 31, 1969. Petitioners allege that the Trust will initially receive funds from three sources, i.e.: (a) an undetermined sum from this estate; (b) approximately $550,000 from the trustees of an Inter vivos trust created by this decedent by agreement dated October 9, 1967; and (c) $200,000 from the trustees of the decedent’s estate by virtue of the power of appointment in his will which was executed by this decedent in favor of the Trust.

The issue in this case is whether the petition to amend the testatrix should be granted.

Published on: December 23, 2013

Counsel Tries to Withdraw from Guardianship Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, this motion to withdraw as counsel raises serious and important issues about the obligations of the court and of counsel when it appears that a client who is a defendant in a civil action lacks capacity to assist or participate in the defense of that action. Movant represents defendant in an action initially brought in Supreme Court, New York County, by her now-deceased mother. Following the mother’s death, her son, and brother, preliminary executor of the deceased’s estate, was substituted as plaintiff. While there are 11 separate causes of action, the common factual background involves claims that, while living with the deceased’s apartment, the movant engaged in a long course of harassment, threats and mistreatment of her mother that ended only when she was arrested and convicted for an assault on her mother resulting in the latter’s broken arm. Subsequent criminal charges against her, for allegedly soliciting her brother’s murder, were dismissed.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, after various proceedings in Supreme Court, during which the movant was first represented by the coundel, and then by another counsel the case was transferred to this court by order dated August 23, 2007. Since that time, as the case moved toward trial, the movant has gone through four separate sets of counsel. She was initially represented by the Law Offices; on January 15, 2008 and February 25, 2008.

In April 2008, the movant retained an attorney who had previously been employed at the Felder firm. The retainer agreement anticipated that it would secure the services of trial counsel, and in May 2008, after interviewing several firms, he was successful in matching with the law firm. Almost literally on the eve of trial, that firm sought an adjournment which was vigorously opposed by the counsel. The motion was granted, and the trial was adjourned to August 4, 2008, marked final against defendant. On July 18, the counsel moved for leave to withdraw on the grounds, inter alia, that “it has engaged in such conduct which renders it unreasonably difficult for to carry out its employment effectively” pursuant to DR 2-110 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In support of their motion, they supplied an extensive in camera affidavit detailing issues and difficulties in their representation of the movant.

Published on: December 22, 2013

Petitioner Seeking Damages from Probate Attorney

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, this is a motion to dismiss an amended petition filed in a pending accounting proceeding. The amended petition states two causes of action seeking damages in the amount of $20,000 (less disbursements of up to $3,000) from the movant arising out of his allegedly negligent performance of his duties as an attorney in connection with the settlement of the contested probate of this decedent’s will. There are four petitioners: two are hospitals and were the movant’s clients in the probate contest; the other two petitioners were parties to the settlement as persons interested in the estate but were not the movant’s clients. They are the decedent’s separated wife and the trustee of a pre-residuary trust. The question raised by this motion is the scope of the movant’s liability for negligence to persons with whom he had no privity of contract.

A New York Will Lawyer said the background facts here begin with a 1967 separation agreement between the decedent and his wife (who is, as indicated, one of the four petitioners) in which he undertook to execute a will creating a $325,000 trust to pay her $12,000 a year from income or, if income was insufficient therefor, from principal. After her death the remaining principal and any accumulated income was to be paid to the two hospitals who are co-petitioners. The trustee of this trust is the fourth petitioner.

A New York Will Contest Lawyer said that, in 1968, the decedent executed a will creating a pre-residuary trust which complied with the separation agreement. The residue of his estate was bequeathed to the same two hospitals. In 1972, he executed a new will which contained the same pre-residuary trust, but the residue under this will was bequeathed to his nephew. At this time he also created a substantial inter vivos trust which significantly reduced his testamentary estate. The beneficiary of the inter vivos trust was the said nephew.

Published on: November 18, 2013

Petitioner Files Motion to Compel Production of a Will

by Stephen Bilkis

The proponent, A, in this probate proceeding is a devisee and nominated co-executor under the propounded instrument dated 16 February 1994. A moves for summary judgment admitting the will to probate, dismissing the joint objections filed by B, the decedent’s cousin, who is the beneficiary of a larger bequest under an earlier testamentary instrument, and C, the decedent’s brother and distributee; and dismissing the brother’s petition for letters of administration.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the objectants oppose the motion and cross move to dismiss the proponent’s application for letters testamentary and for the appointment of either or both of them as the fiduciary of the estate. They allege that the 1994 instrument is invalid due to lack of due execution, lack of testamentary capacity, forgery, undue influence and fraud. They further assert that the petitioner’s prior felony convictions render him ineligible to be appointed a fiduciary of the estate.

On 23 October 2003, the decedent, a widow, died at the age of 77.

Published on: November 17, 2013

Court Discusses Will Valid Will Construction

by Stephen Bilkis

Decedent died in March 1990 at the age of 91 years. Her distributees are three nieces and one nephew. A New York Probate Lawyer said the propounded instrument is a two-page typewritten document containing a modest bequest to one of decedent’s nieces and bequeathing the residue of this estate, alleged to have a value in excess of $1,000,000.00, to decedent’s nephew. Decedent’s nieces filed objections to probate raising issues with regard to due execution, testamentary capacity, and fraud and undue influence in addition to the issue of revocation presented in the pending application.

A New York Will Lawyer said that proponents are the attorney-draftsman of the propounded instrument and his law partner in whose offices the instrument was executed on January 1980. The instrument was retained by proponents until it was filed for safekeeping in the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County, on February 1980. The original of the propounded will was delivered to this court in connection with the probate proceeding.

It is alleged that decedent, accompanied by one of the objectants and her husband, had an appointment with an attorney during which she expressed her intention to revoke the will. She apparently did not know that the original will had been filed for safekeeping or have any other idea as to its location but she had brought a photocopy of the executed original. Prior to the appointment, decedent had written the word “Void” at the top of the first page of the photocopy. During the meeting with counsel, decedent wrote the word “Cancelled” across the first page of the photocopy under which notation she wrote the date and her initials. Decedent then cut her signature out of the second page of the photocopy. Queens Probate Lawyers said the latter two acts were performed in the presence of decedent’s niece, her husband, and two attorneys. Counsel subsequently retained possession of the altered photocopy and prepared a file memorandum which memorialized the transaction. Apparently decedent never executed a later will. Conservators of her property were subsequently appointed by the Supreme Court, Bronx County.