Wills

Published on: March 23, 2016

Court Discussed Codicil and Will Interpretation

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding for the probate of the will of the deceased. From a decree of the Appellate Division, affirming a decree of the Surrogate’s Court admitting the will and a codicil thereto to probate and construing the provisions thereof, and others appeal. Judgment modified.

The Appellate Division has affirmed a decree (121 N. Y. Supp. 100) of the surrogate of Kings County, which admitted to probate the will of the deceased, and which construed certain of its provisions. It consisted of two instruments, a will and a codicil, both of which were wholly written by the testator and were executed a few years before his death. The testator died April 9, 1909, unmarried and leaving no descendants. The will was executed in 1899. By its first and second articles the testator gave to his nieces respectively, legacies of $75,000 and $50,000. He directed that the two legacies should be held in trust, and that ‘the income shall be paid only to said legatees respectively and an amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) of the principal may be paid to each of them if they so elect when they attain the age of 30 years, to purchase and furnish a home.

The remainder of their respective legacies shall remain in trust and in case of the death of either of them without issue, before the death of their Aunt, legatee under Art. IV herein, then the share of such decedent shall in such event revert to her the said aunt. And in case either said nieces should die without issue subsequently to the death of their Aunt the said and prior to the death of their grandmother then in such case their respective shares shall in like manner revert to their grandmother.’ Article 3 gave to his brother, a plantation in Louisiana. By article 4 the testator gave to his sister, known in the family as a legacy of $125,000, to be held in trust ‘and the income thereof to be paid to herself only, with this proviso however that she may if she wish draw not exceeding Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000) with which to purchase and furnish a home for herself. In case of her death without issue and prior to that of her mother, all her interest herein shall revert to her mother.’ He also gave to her all his ‘interest in and to the estate’ of his mother. By article 6 the testator appoints his mother his ‘residuary legatee, the amount to be placed in trust as herein provided in Art. VIII, for her sole benefit, and the income come thereof to be paid to her. At her death, the principal and any accumulated income there may be shall be divided pro rata between the legatees named in articles I, II, and IV herein respectively upon the basis of their respective legacies herein and to be subject to the same trust restrictions stated herein appertaining to their several legacies hereunder.’ By article 8 the testator appointed the Union Trust Company of the city of New York as the trustee for the trusts in his will and as the executor thereof. A year later the testator executed the codicil. By that instrument he, first revoked the legacies given in article 4 of the will to his sister and substituted in place thereof the sum of ‘$25,000, SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS And terms as expressed in said art. iv, with this exception to wit: that the sum of $2,500, instead of ten thousand dollars, be allowed her out of said amount for purchase of a home for herself if she so elects.’ Next he bequeathed to his sister, the sum of $35,000 and to his brother, the sum of $10,000, and then provided as follow: ‘And I hereby make these two legatees, upon the death of my mother, pro rata residuary legatees under the terms and conditions as set forth in Art. VI herein, as additional residuary legatees. The above legacy to his brother is in addition to the one in his favor under Art. III herein.’

Published on: March 23, 2016

Objectant Asserts her Right to a Jury Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

In this contested probate proceeding, objectant pro se, moves for an order granting her a trial by jury. The proceeding was commenced by petitioner on December 15, 2005. The objectant filed objections to probate on August 3, 2006.The decedent died testate on October 24, 2005. Petitioner is decedent’s sister; she is a distributee, as well as the nominated executor and residuary beneficiary under the propounded instrument dated May 11, 1974. The objectant is a distributee; she is a daughter of one of the decedent’s pre-deceased brothers. She does not receive anything under the propounded instrument.

The objectant asserts that she verbally requested a jury trial at conferences before two different court attorney-referees and was “told that the conference would be first.” She contends that she was not informed that a jury demand had to be in writing, although she also states her belief that she “signed for this.” Had Katherine advised the court that she wanted a jury trial, she would have been advised to file a jury demand.

In her moving papers, the objectant again asserts that one of the court attorney-referees is “in harmony” with petitioner’s attorney. This assertion was the subject of a prior decision (dec no. 666, October 30, 2007) of the court, which denied the objectant’s motion for disqualification of the court attorney-referee because the objectant did not assert any of the statutory disqualifications set forth in section 14 of the Judiciary Law to support her motion (see Schreiber-Cross v. State of New York, 31 AD3d 425 [2nd Dept 2006] and Moers v. Gilbert, 175 Misc 733 [Sup Ct, New York County 1941][court referee is held to the same standards as a Judge] and because the record did not reveal any other basis on which the court might be inclined to assign a different court attorney to the case.

Published on: March 23, 2016

Court Decides How to Handle Fire Insurance Proceeds

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter comes before the Court by reason of the objection of certain legatees of the decedents herein to that portion of the intermediate accounts filed by the Executor which allocates certain fire insurance proceeds in the sum of $16,813.20 for ultimate distribution to a church.

The Decedents, husband and wife, presumably died simultaneously in a fire in their home at Lyons, New York, on December 13, 1959. Decedents left reciprocal wills which were duly admitted to probate in Wayne County on January 15, 1960. On that day Letters Testamentary on the wills of the spouses, both late of the Town of Lyons, New York, were issued to the City of Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan.

The Executor of the Estate, deceased, now petitions for the Judicial Settlement of his first intermediate account in the two estates. In such petitions asks that this Court determine to whom the $16,813.20 insurance settlement, received on account of the fire loss to the real estate of the decedents at Butternut Street, Lyons, New York, should be paid.

Published on: March 23, 2016

Court Listens to Petition to Modify Restrictions on an Endowment Fund

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a petition to modify restrictions on an endowment fund, pursuant to section 8-1.1 of the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law or, in the alternative, section 522 of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law. Petitioners, trustees of a university, seek an order authorizing the subdivision of an endowment fund created by a testamentary bequest to the College of Medicine. The Attorney General of the State of New York (on behalf of ultimate charitable beneficiaries) has reviewed the current audit of the fund and raises no objection to the relief requested in the petition.

The decedent died on March 9, 1985. Her last will and testament was admitted to probate by a decree of this court dated April 5, 1985. Decedent was a graduate of the University, a member of the Board of Trustees and a benefactor of the University. In September 1986, the University received $1,500,000 from the estate of the deceased.

The University states that the income from the fund exceeds the amount required to fund a chair in clinical medicine. Specifically, the income exceeds the amount that can be utilized under the University’s guidelines. The guidelines for endowment funds provide payment of a salary to the professor appointed to the professorship and expenses including laboratory space and research services. Beginning in 2007, the University has required $2.5 million to fund an endowment for a full professorship and $1.5 million to fund an endowed associate or an assistant professorship. The currently expendable income from the Uris professorship generates annual expendable income of $242,284. A current endowment of $2.5 million generates expendable income of $107,500.

Published on: March 23, 2016

pro 339

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding to construe and reform the last will and testament of a decedent who died on August 31, 2006 survived by four adult children. The will was admitted to probate by decree dated March 7, 2007, and the children were appointed as the coexecutors of the estate. The court has appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the disabled daughter’s interests in this proceeding. Jurisdiction is complete. The guardian ad litem has filed his report, and the matter has been submitted for decision.

A Kings County Estate Lawyer said that the daughter has filed a document entitled “Response to Executor/Fiduciary Petition for Construction of Will” in which she terms herself “petitioner.” The guardian has submitted a report in which he informs the court that after an article 81 hearing on April 23, 2008, the judge rendered a decision wherein he concluded that the daughter has certain deficiencies and limitations and further concluded that son would be appointed as daughter’s guardian with certain limited powers, which the ward does not enumerate.

Although the New York State Department of Health (DOH) has no current claim or pecuniary interest, it was cited and appeared in this proceeding by its attorney, the Attorney General of New York. DOH consents to having the will reformed to name trustees for the ARTICLE FOURTH trust, but takes no position as to who should be named as trustees. DOH opposes Irwin’s request to reform the ARTICLE FOURTH trust into a supplemental needs trust. DOH asserts that reforming the trust to create a supplemental needs trust is not necessary or appropriate given the language the decedent used in the will to pay Susan all of the net annual income of the trust without any trustee discretion or interference about how the money is to be used. DOH points out that the will postdates the enactment in 1993 of EPTL 7-1.12, the statute that authorizes the establishment of supplemental needs trusts for individuals with severe and chronic or persistent disabilities.

Published on: February 12, 2016

Petitioner Requests Probate of Will Pursuant to SCPA 1407

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an uncontested proceeding to probate a copy of the last will and testament of the decedent. The will is dated March 2, 1981, the original of which cannot be located; the decedent died April 4, 1981. The petitioner is the decedent’s daughter-in-law, the surviving spouse of the decedent’s post-deceased son. At the time of her death in 1981, the decedent’s only distributees were her son and her estranged spouse. She resided in a house owned by her estranged spouse. The decedent’s only asset was a home on the same block which was then occupied by the son and his family. The propounded instrument leaves the entire estate to her son. Petitioner alleges that after the decedent’s death, the son advised her that the decedent had left the residence in which they were residing to him. She also claims that she was not aware that any steps needed to be taken regarding the property until after the son’s death in April 2005, when she attempted to place the house on the market for sale.

A waiver and consent has been filed by the executor of the estate of the decedent, decedent’s estranged spouse who post-deceased the decedent. A renunciation and waiver and consent have also been filed by the son of petitioner and decedent’s son.

Pursuant to SCPA 1407, a lost or destroyed will or codicil may be admitted to probate only upon establishing: (1) that the will has not been revoked; (2) proper execution; and (3) the provisions of the missing will. It appears that the execution of the original instrument was supervised by an attorney permitting the inference that the statutory requirements were met (Matter of Spinello, 291 AD2d 406 [2002]), thus satisfying the requirement of proof of due execution. The court is further satisfied that the original instrument’s provisions have been established by a photocopy which is a true and complete copy of the original instrument as executed (SCPA 1407[3]).

Published on: February 1, 2016

Court Hears Petition for Summary Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

In this probate proceeding, the proponent, one of the decedent’s daughters and the sole residuary legatee under the propounded instrument dated March 8, 1983, seeks leave to move for summary judgment more than 120 days after she filed a note of issue. In the event that the first branch of the application is granted, the proponent moves for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate interposed by one of her sisters and admitting the will to probate. The objectant’s papers in opposition only address the proponent’s motion for summary judgment.

The issue in this case is whether the motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate should be granted.

The court said that CPLR 3212 (a) application for leave to move for summary judgment may only be granted “on good cause shown.” Although the proponent’s motion was not filed with the court until more than eight months after the note of issue was filed, the objectant is primarily responsible for the proponent’s delay in moving for summary judgment because the objectant requested additional disclosure after the note of issue was filed and then failed to conduct the requested deposition in a timely fashion. Specifically, after the note of issue was filed, the objectant moved to strike it and sought further disclosure. That application was granted to the extent that the objectant was granted leave to conduct a deposition that she requested no later than approximately five months after the date the note of issue was filed. The parties thereafter extended the time to conduct the deposition for a period of approximately two more months. After the objectant’s counsel cancelled an agreed-upon deposition date, the proponent’s counsel notified him that he would not agree to any further extensions without a court order. The objectant never moved for another extension to conduct the deposition and the instant application was filed approximately one week after a pretrial conference with the court.

Published on: January 30, 2016

Petitioner Brings Motion Compelling Appearance of Proponent

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a motion for an order directing the proponent, who is decedent’s widow, to appear for an examination before trial to enable petitioner to frame objections to the propounded instrument bearing date March 10, 1961, and for other relief. The filing of a petition and service of a citation in a Surrogate’s Court proceeding is analogous to the service of a summons and complaint in an action brought in a court of record pursuant to the Civil Practice Act (Surrogate’s Court Act, § 48; Matter of Joslin’s Estate, 74 Misc. 332, 134 N.Y.S. 229).

The issue in this case is whether petitioner’s motion for an order directing the proponent, to appear for an examination before trial to enable petitioner to frame objections to the propounded instrument bearing date March 10, 1961 should be granted.

Published on: January 28, 2016

Court Decides Status of Unwitnessed Holographic Will

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner, a sister of the testator, presents an unwitnessed holographic instrument executed January 9, 1968 (‘January instrument’) and also a duly executed instrument (which has been proved as a will) dated February 20, 1968 (‘February will’). The January holographic instrument necessarily must be denied probate. It was executed in New York; the decedent was not a member of the armed forces; it is unwitnessed. (EPTL 3–2.2, 3–2.1.) As already noted the February will has been duly proved.

The January instrument disposes ‘of my entire personal estate’ to petitioner. The February will provides: ‘FIRST: I ratify and confirm all wills heretofore made by me at any time in every respect, except insofar as the same is inconsistent with the provisions of this codicil. SECOND: I direct that any monies realized from any and all Stocks and Bonds in my name be divided equally between: (listing three brothers and his sister).’

The petition presents an issue under the doctrine of ‘incorporation by reference’ as applied to wills. (see Law Revision Commission Report (1935) p. 431 et seq.; 1963 Report Bennett Comm.; Rept. No. 6.1B pp. 286–350.)

Published on: January 24, 2016

Petitioner Asks for Interpretation of Residuary Clause

by Stephen Bilkis

The residuary clause of the will of the decedent dated December 2, 1999, which was admitted to probate on August 16, 2001, reads as follows: “All the rest, residue and remainder of the property which I may own at the time of my death, real and personal, and whosesoever the same may be situate.” There is no more. The name of the intended beneficiary of the residuary is missing. As a practical matter, the residuary clause amounts to only 10% of the estate, since the will made pre-residuary bequests of 90% of the net estate.

The executrix of the will, has petitioned for construction of the will by reading the residuary clause to be the same as decedent’s prior will dated June 18, 1997. The residuary clause of the 1997 will provided: “All the rest, residue and remainder of the property which I may own at the time of my death, real and personal, and whosesoever the same may be situate I give, devise and bequeath to my nephew, per stirpes. In the event that my nephew, does not survive me, his share shall go to his wife.”

The decedent’s nephew died on November 25, 2000, without issue and the decedent died on November 30, 2000. The persons who would take the decedent’s estate in intestacy are a niece, and a great nephew. The decedent’s niece has filed a consent to the relief requested in the petition for construction. The decedent’s nephew defaulted in appearing on the return day of the proceeding. The attorney-draftsperson of the will, has filed an affidavit stating that when the 1997 will was redrafted in 1999, using computer software “some lines from the residuary clause were accidentally deleted.”