Wills

Published on: May 2, 2014

Court is Asked to Dispense with Filing of a Bond

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, in this uncontested probate proceeding, the court is asked to dispense with the filing of a bond by the nominated trustee due to a purported scrivener’s error in the will. The decedent died a resident of Nassau County on February 4, 2007. A will dated September 20, 2006 has been offered for probate by the nominated executor. The executor is the decedent’s husband. The decedent was also survived by two adult children, an adult grandchild and two minor grandchildren.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, Article FOURTH of the will creates a trust to be funded with the “exemption amount.” The trust terminates upon the executor’s death, and he has a limited testamentary power of appointment over the trust principal. If or to the extent that he fails to exercise the limited power of appointment, the remaining trust principal is payable to his 1993 Insurance Trust. The residuary estate is payable to him. The will nominates the husband as trustee and the decedent’s children as successor trustees.

Nassau County Probate Lawyers said the issue in this case is whether the executor husband can be dispense with the filing of a bond by the nominated trustee due to a purported scrivener’s error in the will.

Published on: May 1, 2014

Court Decides if Objections to Guardian Ad Litem Report Should be Granted

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, in this probate proceeding, the decedent was survived by her husband and her three adult children. The propounded instrument nominates all three sons as co-executors and bequeaths the entire estate to them, to the exclusion of her husband. The decedent’s husband is a person under disability and a guardian ad litem was appointed to represent his interests in this proceeding. Although no objections were filed, settlement negotiations between the guardian ad litem and the three brothers proceeded for some time without success. Ultimately, the guardian ad litem filed his report wherein he indicates that he has no objection to the will’s admission to probate, but seeks the court’s permission to file a notice of election on behalf of his ward. He also opines that due to the hostility displayed by the brothers against one another, the best interests of the estate administration would be served by the appointment of an independent party to administer the estate.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, the third son has not filed any objection to the recommendations made by the guardian ad litem. The court notes that he has been living in the decedent’s former residence at least since the time of the decedent’s death, and by his own admission has been living there without either heat or electricity for many months. His suitability as a fiduciary is therefore greatly suspect.

A Westchester County Probate Lawyers said that, the first son, an attorney, has filed objections to the report of the guardian ad litem in which he threatens to immediately commence a Supreme Court action to block the appointment of an independent fiduciary, asserting he will “not stand idly by while some two-bit money hungry shyster is appointed to serve as Executor instead of your affirmant and/or your brothers’.” He also threatens to move for a change of venue, fearing a conspiracy exists between the court and the second son’s attorney based on the fact that the latter’s attorney, as a law student, served as an intern in this court during the summer of 1996. The court also notes that at the last conference on July 21, 2010, the first son had to be removed from the court’s conference room by a court officer because of his extremely abusive and hostile manner directed toward his siblings and the second son’s attorney.

Published on: April 13, 2014

Court Rules on Reasonable Attorneys Fees in Probate Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, the decedent died on June 4, 1931, a resident of Nassau County. His will dated November 26, 1930 was admitted to probate by decree dated June 15, 1931. The will created a trust for the benefit of the beneficiary under Article ELEVENTH. Letters of trusteeship originally issued to. The beneficiary died on August 30, 1989, a resident of New York County, leaving a will and codicil which was admitted to probate by the Surrogate’s Court of New York County by decree dated October 6, 1989. At the time of her death, the trustees of the trust were the beneficiary and the Bank.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, pursuant to Subdivision A of Article ELEVENTH of the decedent’s will, the trust is to be administered and disposed of as follows: “A. If my said daughter shall survive me, to invest and from time to time reinvest said share and to collect the income thereof, and during the life of my said daughter apply the net income thereof to the use of my said daughter by payment thereof to her, and IN FURTHER TRUST upon the death of my said daughter to pay and distribute the principal of the trust estate so held to and among the lawful issue of my said daughter who shall survive my said daughter and the lawful issue of my said son, who shall survive my said daughter, in such amounts, equal or unequal, as my said daughter in her uncontrolled discretion may, by last will and testament duly admitted to probate and not otherwise, appoint, expressly granting to my said daughter the right in the exercise of such power of appointment to exclude wholly from participation therein any one or more of her issue and/or any one or more of the issue of my said son; provided, however, that my said daughter, by last will and testament duly admitted to probate and not otherwise, may on such terms and conditions as she may think fit appoint any part or parts of the principal of said trust estate to a trustee or trustees in trust for the use of any of the lawful issue of my said daughter born before my death and her surviving, or of any of the lawful issue of my said son born before my death and her surviving, during the life of the cestui que trust of each trust so created, or for such lesser period as she may think fit.”

A Staten Island Probate Lawyer said that, the decedent daughter was survived by her three children,. In accordance with the decedent’s exercise of her power of appointment, Chemical Bank divided the principal of the decedent trust into three equal shares and held one such share in separate further trust for each of her children. This is an accounting with respect to the sub-trust for the benefit of the child. A Nassau Estate Administration Lawyer said that, by decree dated April 6, 1992, was appointed to serve as co-trustee of the fist child sub-trust with Manhattan Bank (successor by merger to Chemical Bank). By order dated February 27, 2008, this court approved the resignation of the Bank, as co-trustee of the sub-trust for the first child and the appointment of the decedent. The presumptive remainder men of the sub-trust for the benefit of the first child/son, the decedent’s great-grandchildren, all of whom are adults. Citation issued to all of the presumptive remainder men, as a successor trustee of the sub-trust. None of them have appeared in this proceeding.

Published on: April 12, 2014

Court Rules on Action to Vacate Deed

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer this is an action to vacate a deed or, in the alternative, impress a constructive trust, which was originally commenced by RM, as executor of the estate of MM, in the Supreme Court of Nassau County. The proceeding was later on transferred to the court at bar by order dated 21 October 2005.

RM moved for summary judgment and the respondent, CS, cross-moved for summary judgment for a declaration that the transfer was a valid gift.

The particular events that took place are detailed below.

Published on: April 10, 2014

Respondent Contends Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

In this Will Contest case, a motion by the executor for an order consenting to a transfer to this court of an action currently is pending in Supreme Court, New York County. Respondent argues that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the dispute and that Nassau County is not the proper venue for the case.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that the decedent died in December 1993. The court admitted his Last Will and Testament to probate and issued letters testamentary to petitioner thereafter. Petitioner subsequently filed an accounting and a supplemental accounting, respectively, with this court. At the closing date of the latter, the estate held interests in real estate partnerships, all controlled by general partner. At a special meeting of the shareholders, decedent issued sixty shares of stock each to petitioner and respondent, with petitioner holding her shares in trust for respondent, and with respondent holding his stocks in trust for decedent, an arrangement referred to as a “tontine” trust. Evidenced in the meeting’s minutes is “the intention that the sole possession and ownership of the stock remain within the three parties and that the survivor of the three have sole possession of all the outstanding and issued stock of the corporation.” Also, new stock certificates would be issued when one of the parties died, and these would be evenly split and distributed to the remaining parties, with each holding his share in trust for the other. Petitioner disputes the existence of this arrangement, and respondent’s pending Supreme Court case pertains to petitioner’s actions as executrix relating to decedent’s sixty shares.

A New York Will Lawyer said the Surrogate Court’s subject matter jurisdiction has steadily expanded throughout the twentieth century. The Court of Appeals held in a case involving two living parties (one being a fiduciary of a decedent’s estate) and an eviction proceeding, that, “for the Surrogate’s Court to decline jurisdiction, it should be abundantly clear that the matter in controversy in no way affects the affairs of a decedent or the administration of his estate”.

Published on: April 9, 2014

Disinherited Daughter Challenges Will

by Stephen Bilkis

The decedent died leaving a will. The will nominates 2 s executors but one of them renounced his appointment. The decedent was survived by his two adult children.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that the will provides that the decedent’s entire residuary estate shall be distributed to decedent’s companion. The will specifically disinherits the decedent’s children. The executor has petitioned for preliminary letters testamentary.

By order to show cause, the decedent’s daughter seeks an order (i) denying the issuance of preliminary letters testamentary to the executor; (ii) disqualifying him from serving as executor of the estate; (iii) removing him as the attorney for the estate; (iv) compelling the executor to comply with discovery demands previously served; (v) compelling him to produce and file with the court an alleged 2004 will of the decedent; (vi) appointing a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the decedent’s two infant grandchildren named as beneficiaries in the prior will; (vii) appointing the daughter as executor since she was alleged named as executor in the 2004 will; (viii) staying the issuance of preliminary letters to the executor pending a hearing on the order to show cause; and (ix)adjourning the SCPA 1404 examinations.

Published on: April 8, 2014

Court Rules on an Application for Letters Testamentary

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said this is an application for preliminary letters testamentary. The decedent died in December 2005 leaving a will (the “2005 Will”) and a prior will in January 2003 (the “2003 Will”). The 2003 will nominates the decedent’s daughter as executor and another daughter as successor executor. The 2005 will also nominates the first daughter as executor. The decedent was also survived by her other daughter.

A New York Will Lawyer said that the 2003 will bequeaths all shares that the decedent had in any companies or corporations to the decedent’s grandchildren, equally and the decedent’s bank accounts to her daughters equally. The 2003 will further provide for bequests of tangible personal property. The 2003 will gives the decedent’s cooperative apartment in equal shares. The remainder of the estate is bequeathed in one-third (1/3) shares to each of the decedent’s daughters.

The 2005 will gives all of the decedent’s jewelry to a daughter, and the balance of the decedent’s tangible personal property located in her home to another daughter and her husband. The 2005 will further provide for a bequest of the decedent’s joint bank account to the daughter executor or if she does not survive, to another daughter. Under Article FOURTH of the 2005 will, the residuary estate is bequeathed to the daughter executor.

Published on: April 7, 2014

Court Decides Case Where Will is Lost

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said by this proceeding, the petitioner, the nominated fiduciary, seeks to admit to probate a copy of the last will of decedent, the original not being found after the death of the testator. The decedent’s will was executed in 2009.

A New York Will Lawyer said that the decedent was survived by her husband and three children, two of whom are minors. A guardian ad litem was appointed for the minor children and has filed a report in which he recommends that the lost will be admitted to probate and that the court approve a stipulation of settlement providing the same. The decedent’s will provides for the distribution of her assets to her children. The will provides in Article Fifth (b) that the decedent leaves no portion of the residue to her husband, not because of any lack of affection for him, but because he is the sole beneficiary of a life insurance policy in the face amount of $1,000,000 and he will also become the sole owner of their home as well as a condominium in Florida. The decedent’s husband filed objections to the lost will being admitted to probate which were later withdrawn by the proposed stipulation of settlement.

In order to have the copy of the will probated, petitioner relies on the provisions of SCPA 1407 which provide: A lost or destroyed will may be admitted to probate only if: 1. It is established that the will has not been revoked, and 2. Execution of the will is proved in the manner required for the probate of an existing will, and 3. All of the provisions of the will are clearly and distinctly proved by each of at least two credible witnesses or by a copy or draft of the will proved to be true and complete.

Published on: April 5, 2014

Objectant Moves for Disqualifying Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said this probate proceeding, objectant moves for an order disqualifying counsel, the petitioner and nominated executor under the will of the decedent. The lawyer crossmoves for sanctions on for making a frivolous motion.

A New York Will Lawyer said that the motion was brought in connection with the contested probate of an instrument. The decedent died in January 2007, survived by three children. A petition for probate was filed and an SCPA 1404 examination was conducted. Objections were subsequently filed by herein objectant. In connection with the depositions and objections, the lawyer, the nominated executor, is represented by of counsel t. Depositions were concluded thereafter.

The motion for disqualification arises out of legal representation of the Company, which has four shareholders who each own 25% of the corporation. The shareholders are objectant, her husband, her brother, and brother’s wife. In 2000, the company commenced two actions one of which, against the brother, remains open. The company is now in bankruptcy proceedings. Objectant seeks disqualification as counsel to executor in the probate proceeding on the grounds that they cannot represent executor, whose interests are adverse to the interests of its former client, objectant.

Published on: April 4, 2014

Court Determines Fee to be Paid to Guardian Ad Litem

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, the decedent, died a resident of Nassau County on March 2, 2007, leaving a last will and testament dated June 4, 1993. A petition for probate was filed by a legatee under the will who was related to the decedent by marriage. By order dated February 1, 2010, the court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of decedent’s missing and unknown distributees. On February 3, 2012, the guardian ad litem filed his report recommending that the will be admitted to probate. At that time, he also filed an affirmation of services. At the request of the court, the guardian ad litem filed a supplemental affirmation on July 24, 2012.

A New York Will Lawyer said the issue in this case is the determination of the fee payable to the guardian ad litem.

Long Island Probate Lawyers said the court bears the ultimate responsibility for approving legal fees that are charged to an estate and has the discretion to determine what constitutes reasonable compensation for legal services rendered in the course of the administration of an estate. While there is no hard and fast rule to calculate reasonable compensation to an attorney in every case, the Surrogate is required to exercise his or her authority “with reason, proper discretion and not arbitrarily”.