Wills

Published on: March 2, 2014

Petitioners File Will Contest Based on Fraud

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, this is a proceeding to vacate a decree of probate and to allow the petitioners to withdraw the waivers of process, consents to probate they executed on May 17, 1999. The petitioners are the decedent’s four adult children, the executor of the estate, opposes the requested relief. The husband is the decedent’s surviving spouse; he and the decedent were married in November 1991. He is not the father of the petitioners.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, on February 20, 2008, the court issued a decision and order wherein the court granted the petitioners’ counsel’s unopposed motion to withdraw as the petitioners’ counsel and stayed the proceedings for 30 days after a copy of the order was served by overnight delivery on the petitioners. A copy of the order was served as directed, and the period of the stay has expired. The petition to vacate the decree granting probate and for other relief has now been submitted for decision.

The decedent died on December 5, 1998 at the age of 57. Her last will and testament dated March 11, 1995 was admitted to probate by decree dated July 29, 1999, and letters testamentary were issued to the husband. The affidavit of subscribing witnesses annexed to the will states that the will was executed under the supervision of an attorney. The decedent left her entire estate to the husband. In the event that he had predeceased the decedent, the decedent bequeathed the estate to the petitioners, per stirpes.

Published on: March 1, 2014

Court Discusses Case Regarding CPLR 3101 (a)(4)

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Estate Lawyer said that, in this probate proceeding the contestants move pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4) for an order to examine on oral questions non-parties and to direct them to produce certain books and records relating to the decedent. The non-parties are the Nassau County Police Department and the Nassau County Social Services Department. The relief sought is based on an affidavit prepared by the contestants’ attorney, wherein he states that the Nassau County Police Department and the Nassau County Social Services Department are in possession of information which will aid him in the preparation for trial.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, the Nassau County Police Department states that there is only one police blotter relating to the decedent and that it has attached a copy of same to its reply. It states that there are no other police blotters. The movants also request the examination of the lieutenant. The Police Department, in its reply, indicates that there is an Inspector but that it does not know specifically what information he would have. The proponent argues that the contestants have failed to show special circumstances for the examinations. Both the proponent and the Nassau County Social Services Department object to the production of records held by the Social Services Department and to the examination of any of its employees because they contend that such records are confidential and are not discoverable.

Westchester County Probate Lawyers said the issue in this case is whether proceeding the motion pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4) for an order to examine on oral questions non-parties and to direct them to produce certain books and records relating to the decedent should be granted.

Published on: February 28, 2014

Court Determines Possible Violation of No Contest Clause in Will

by Stephen Bilkis

In this Probate action, a daughter of the decedent filed a motion to stay the entry of a decree admitting the propounded instrument to probate; for an extension of time to file objections; for leave to examine the proponent and for a construction of the effect of a no-contest clause contained in the instrument offered for probate.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that the instrument offered for probate contains a clause revoking any bequest to any beneficiary who opposed probate of the will, participated in actions to set aside or invalidate any of its provisions or who aided another in doing so. The movant requests that prior to a determination of her application to examine the proponent, the court construe the clause and determine whether the examination would be in violation of the no-contest clause. The court may not construe an instrument prior to its admission to probate as a valid will. While there may be a construction of a will in a probate proceeding, this must come only after probate has been decreed for the reason that until the instrument has been probated, there is nothing before the court to be construed. Although the court cannot reach a construction of the specific clause of the proposed instrument it may determine whether the examination of the proponent amounts to conduct permissible under the public policy declaration in EPTL 3–3.5 as conduct not in violation of any no-contest clause.

A New York Will Lawyer said aso called In terrorem or no-contest clause is operative according to its terms subject to the provisions which spell out with particularity the conduct by the beneficiary or other person which does not, as a matter of substantive law, constitute a breach of a no-contest condition in a will occasioning a forfeiture of a benefit under the will.

Published on: February 27, 2014

Petitioner Files Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a motion to dismiss a petition for original probate for lack of jurisdiction, both as a matter of law in the exercise of the court’s discretion.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that decedent died in New Hampshire. Decedent was a non-resident of New York. The proponent-executrix, decedent’s widow, contends that decedent was and that she is a domiciliary of Vermont and that decedent was a citizen of the United States. The moving party, decedent’s daughter, contends that decedent was a domiciliary of Zurich, Switzerland and that he had dual nationality being a citizen both of the United States and of Switzerland. The moving party is herself a domiciliary of Spain.

A New York Will Lawyer is claimed that 90% of the assets of the estate are in a custody account in New York. There are some assets both in Switzerland and in Vermont including a house in Vermont and an apartment in Zurich. The propounded will was executed in New York and contains a clause directing that the construction of the will and the administration of the estate shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York. Two of the three subscribing witnesses to the will were stated in the will to be residents of New York and the third a resident of New Jersey. The substituted executors named in the will are apparently residents of New York. So far as appears, no probate proceeding or other proceeding for the administration of decedent’s estate is pending in Switzerland or Vermont or anywhere but in New York.

Published on: February 26, 2014

The issue in this case is whether the United States estate tax should be allocated against legacies bequeathed in the Mexican will of the decedent.

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, the decedent was a citizen of the United States, domiciled in Mexico City, who possessed substantial assets in New York and in Mexico. On May 14, 1965 she executed a will in New York which disposed of all of her property ‘wheresoever’s situate’, directed that, regardless of her domicile at death, her will be offered for probate in New York County, that the administration of her estate be conducted subject to the jurisdiction of this court, and that her will and all dispositions therein be construed and regulated by the laws of the State of New York. The residuary estate administration was bequeathed in equal shares to two friends, one of whom resided in Brooklyn and the other in El Paso, Texas. The latter is the objectant here.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, on January 20, 1966–approximately eight months after the execution of her will in New York–the decedent executed a notarial will in Mexico City. An English translation of the Spanish text is incorporated in the probate decree of this court. The will contains several general legacies expressed in Mexican currency and ‘for the remainder of her estate (the testatrix) institutes as her sole heirs in equal one-third shares’ three individuals, all residents of Mexico City. This instrument made no mention of the New York will and no reference at all to estate taxes. It declares that ‘the testamentary provisions contained in this instrument shall apply only to the property or money which the testatrix has in the Mexican Republic’, and it appoints Mexican executors. A second notarial will was executed in Mexico on April 25, 1966. It is actually a codicil to the January will, revoking one general legacy and also the institution of one of the three as an heir, leaving the other two persons ‘as the sole heiresses in equal parts.’ This instrument also is silent with respect to estate taxes and their impact.

A Westchester County Probate Lawyer said that, the decedent died in Mexico on April 22, 1967. Her New York will and the two notarial instruments were offered for probate in this court. Preliminary letters testamentary were issued to the executor named in the New York will on June 2, 1967. By decree dated June 5, 1968 this court found that the will dated May 14, 1965 had been duly executed, that the instruments in the Spanish language dated January 20, 1966 and April 25, 1966 had been duly established as testamentary instruments in accordance with the laws of Mexico, and that the English translations offered for probate were true translations of the Spanish original. A New York Probate Lawyer said that, it decreed that the three paper writings be admitted to probate ‘as together constituting the last will and testament of the said Bessie Owen, deceased. Letters testamentary were directed to issue to Bankers Trust Company, the executor named in the New York will, ‘provided that such letters testamentary, and the authority, responsibility and accountability of Bankers Trust Company thereunder, shall not extend to property, money or matters administered in Mexico but shall otherwise be unlimited.’ Such letters were issued on June 7, 1968.

Published on: February 25, 2014

Court Decides Case Regarding Rhode Island’s Non-claim Statute

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, plaintiff was a patient of the decedent doctor, a general dentist. He died on September 12, 2005. Although he lived in New York at the time of his death, a probate estate was commenced in Rhode Island where he possessed property and where, over a decade earlier, he had executed his will. On December 8, 2005, the decedent’s brother (who happens to be an attorney), was appointed as Executor of the Estate of the decedent (“the Executor”) In late December 2005, he sent plaintiff care of her attorney, a “Notice of Commencement of Probate,” which set forth information regarding the decedent’s Rhode Island probate estate.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, plaintiff commenced this dental-malpractice action against the Executor in June 2006. In her Verified Complaint, she alleges that the decedent committed malpractice while rendering dental treatment between September 11, 2004, and February 15, 2005. The Executor’s Verified Answer (dated August 24, 2006), includes the affirmative defenses of failure to “timely file a claim against decedent’s estate” pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws §§ 33-11-4, 5, 9 and “insufficient service of process.”

A Nassau County Probate Lawyer said that, pursuant to CPLR 3211, defendant Executor of the Estate of the decedent moves to dismiss this dental malpractice action commenced by plaintiff, arguing that plaintiff failed to comply with Rhode Island’s non-claim statute and failed to properly serve him. Plaintiff opposes the motion and, as a precautionary matter, cross-moves for an extension of time to properly serve the Summons and Verified Complaint.

Published on: February 24, 2014

Court Decides Validity of German Will

by Stephen Bilkis

In this proceeding the petitioner requests probate of a will executed in 1955 while the decedent was domiciled in New York County. A New York Probate Lawyer said that the petitioner is an appointed executor of a will which bequeaths the residuary estate to a New York charity. Decedent journeyed to Bavaria, West Germany in 1965 and executed a holographic will while still there in 1967; that will provides that it revokes all prior wills. She died, still in Germany, having neither home nor presence in New York from after departure in 1965 until her death in 1968.

A New York Will Lawyer said that Respondent cross-petitioner is the sole legatee under the later will, which was established in court proceedings in West Germany in 1972. Respondent cross-petitioner moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition and denying probate to the prior 1955 will. Respondent further petitions for ancillary letters c.t.a. on the basis of the 1967 will.

A Staten Island Probate Lawyer said that the court finds that judicial decrees, not administrative certificates, were rendered by courts of record in Germany in the establishment of the 1967 holographic will of the decedent. Furthermore, the ‘Certificate of Inheritance’ issued by the District Court in Germany constitutes a final decree and not merely an interlocutory determination. In addition a finding of German domicile was essential to the establishment of the 1967 will in Germany. On the basis of the recognized rules of comity, this court gives full recognition to the establishment of the 1967 will of the decedent in the German courts.

Published on: February 23, 2014

Petitioner Alleges Undue Influence Regarding Will Execution

by Stephen Bilkis

Decedent died in September 2005 at the age of 93, survived by two nephews, and the issue of a predeceased nephew. The 2005 Will was admitted to probate by decree and letters testamentary thereupon issued to co-executors.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that in August 2006, a legatee of a small bequest discovered that decedent’s testamentary plan had been revised significantly from her penultimate will2 and, further, that decedent’s long-time attorney, had not supervised the 2005 Will’s execution. As decedent’s friend and investment advisor, the legatee had almost daily conversations with decedent and her home attendants in the months preceding execution of the 2005 Will.

A New York Will Lawyer said as he worked on an active trading floor, these telephone calls were recorded. The legatee recalled having had several conversations between March 2005 and May 2005, in the months after decedent had suffered a stroke and preceding execution of the 2005 Will, in which it seemed co-executors were assuming increased control over decedent’s finances and were pressuring decedent to change her will. Legatee requisitioned the tapes of those calls and brought the transcripts to the attention of the other co-executors. The transcripts, including conversations directly with decedent, depict behavior by co-executors that supports an allegation of undue influence.

Published on: February 22, 2014

Court Decides Settlement of Intermediate Account of the Executors

by Stephen Bilkis

In this proceeding for the settlement of the intermediate account of the executors the petition prays construction of provisions of the will which have created nine separate and distinct questions involving its interpretation.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that in Paragraph Third of her will, the testatrix made twenty-seven gifts to individuals and charitable institutions. Each of the bequests was described as consisting of ‘a sum equivalent to of my estate.’

‘It is conceded that as a general rule, absent some provision to the contrary, debts and administration expenses are deducted in computing the value of an estate when a fraction thereof has been bequeathed.

Published on: February 21, 2014

Petitioners Assert Fraud and Undue Influence Regarding Construction of Will

by Stephen Bilkis

There is offered for probate as decedent’s last will and testament an instrument in his own hand in the following text: “This is my will if I should die on this my trip to India You are my sol heiress.”

A New York Probate Lawyer said that the objections to the probate of this document were interposed by decedent’s widow and his brother. Their objections asserting fraud, undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity were withdrawn prior to the trial so that the only remaining issues as to the validity of the paper’s execution as a will are those asserting that the instrument was not duly published by decedent and that he did not request the witnesses to attest it.

A New York Will Lawyer said a motion was made by the widow for a summary judgment that the propounded paper was subject to a condition which never occurred and consequently the instrument never became effective as the decedent’s will. It was urged in support of this motion that the propounded paper was intended to be operative only in the event of decedent’s death on a particular trip to India and, inasmuch as he did not make a trip to India and died in July 1954 in a New York City hospital, the instrument should not be admitted to probate. The court ruled that the motion for denial of probate would be held in abeyance for determination with other issues upon the trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of this court and held that the effect of the alleged condition upon the validity of the propounded paper should be determined on the trial of the probate or other hearing at which the parties would have an opportunity to develop extrinsic facts in aid of a construction of the testator’s language. In accordance with this holding the parties have been permitted to introduce evidence in support of their respective contentions as to the validity and effect of the propounded paper.