Articles Posted in Wills

This is an application for limited letters of temporary estate administration. Decedent executed a will in Ireland which was witnessed by the manager for the United States Lines in Ireland and the American Consul in Cork. Beside a small bequest to a friend, the entire residuary is bequeathed to the decedent’s granddaughter. The will does not name an executor. The decedent’s granddaughter petitions for probate of the will and for letters of administration c. t. a. She makes this motion for limited letters of temporary estate administration so that she can commence an action against the United States Lines before the statute of limitations runs out. This motion is opposed by one of two sisters who are distributees of decedent, on the ground that the wrongful death suit is ‘exclusively for the benefit of the decedent’s wife, husband, parent, child or dependent relative.’ She argues that the decedent’s granddaughter is none of these and that under section 118 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, letters should issue to a distributee, namely, herself, so that she might bring the action against the steamship line.

The applicable federal statute provides that the action shall be maintained by the personal representative of the decedent (Title 46, Sec. 761, U.S.C.A.). Since it appears that the will of decedent is uncontested and that on its probate the decedent’s granddaughter would be entitled to letters of administration c. t. a. as the sole residuary legatee (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 133, subd. 2) and would be the person authorized under the federal statute to prosecute the action, the Court will appoint her Temporary Administratrix under Limited Letters, upon qualifying according to law. Upon the will being admitted to probate, the Temporary Letters will be revoked and letters of administration c. t. a. will issue to the decedent’s granddaughter nning. Settle decree on notice.

In another case, in a probate proceeding petitioner claims that under the terms of the propounded instrument she is entitled to decedent’s net estate and to letters testamentary. The respondents have appeared and filed their consent to probate the instrument, but dispute petitioner’s claim. A construction is requested to determine whether the provisions of paragraph ‘Fourth’ are operative and dispose of decedent’s estate.

Continue reading

On December 2, 1999 a will 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.

Petitioner as 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 nephew died on November 25, 2000, without issue and testator died on November 30, 2000. The persons who would take the decedent’s estate in intestacy are a niece, and a great nephew. The niece has filed a consent to the relief requested in the petition for construction. The nephew defaulted in appearing on the return day of the proceeding.

Continue reading

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]).

Continue reading

In a proceeding for the judicial settlement of the final account of the preliminary executors and the executors of the will of the deceased, for the period from November 1, 1995, through May 28, 1999, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County), dated February 9, 2004, as denied his motion for summary judgment fixing his compensation as preliminary executor in the sum of $2,563,803.81 and granted that branch of the cross motion of Long Island College Hospital, Polytechnic University, Chemical Heritage Foundation, and the Attorney General which was for summary judgment limiting his compensation for all services as an executor of the decedent’s will, whether performed as a preliminary executor or as an executor, to the sum of $400,000. In a proceeding for the judicial settlement of the final account of the preliminary executors and the executors of the will of the deceased, for the period from November 1, 1995, through May 28, 1999, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County), dated February 9, 2004, as denied his motion for summary judgment fixing his compensation as preliminary executor in the sum of $2,563,803.81 and granted that branch of the cross motion of Long Island College Hospital, Polytechnic University, Chemical Heritage Foundation, and the Attorney General which was for summary judgment limiting his compensation for all services as an executor of the decedent’s will, whether performed as a preliminary executor or as an executor, to the sum of $400,000.

The petitioners, were named co-executors in article fourteen of the decedent’s will, which provides: “The commissions payable to my executors shall be according to the New York statute then in effect, but shall in no event exceed the sum of $800,000, which amount shall be divided between my executors, if more than one shall be serving, as they may agree, recognizing the extent of the duties and the relative difficulty of the duties assumed by each or done by each in his respective tenure in office, and the remaining duties and their extent remaining after his tenure, and I direct that each executor agree in writing to that provision as a condition of qualifying.” In the event either or both nominated executors failed to qualify, nonparty Fiduciary Trust Company International of New York was named as an alternate executor. Following the death of the decedent, petitioners offered the will for probate on November 3, 1995. On the same day, they filed a petition for preliminary letters testamentary. Preliminary letters testamentary were issued on November 20, 1995. The will was admitted to probate on July 8, 1996. The preliminary letters were vacated, and letters testamentary were issued to the petitioners. On November 4, 1996, petitioner filed a renunciation of compensation provided under the will pursuant to SCPA 2307 (5). Wagner did not renounce the provision limiting his compensation as executor. On November 25, 1996, the executors, petitioners filed a successful ex parte petition for advance payment of commissions pursuant to SCPA 2311, requesting that each executor receive $200,000 on account of their commission. In his supporting affidavit, petitioner purported to preserve his right to statutory commissions under SCPA 2307 by reason of his renunciation. In July 1999, when the executors filed an account of their administration of the estate and petitioned for the settlement of their account, petitioner requested that he be awarded full statutory commissions of $5,323,112, less the $200,000 advance. Wagner only requested that the court award him $400,000 in compensation as provided in the will, of which $200,000 had been paid. The residuary beneficiaries of the estate, several charitable entities, including Long Island College Hospital, Polytechnic University, and the Chemical Heritage Foundation, as well as the Attorney General, statutory representative of charitable beneficiaries (hereinafter collectively the Charities), objected to the accounting, inter alia, on the ground that petitioner was not entitled to statutory commissions. The Charities contended that the will limited compensation to the sum of $800,000, petitioner was required to either accept the compensation cap or not serve at all, and because petitioner petitioned for preliminary letters testamentary in which he swore that he was entitled to letters testamentary immediately upon the probate of the will, he satisfied the condition precedent to qualifying by implicitly accepting the compensation provided in the will, notwithstanding his renunciation.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied his motion for summary judgment to fix his statutory compensation as preliminary executor in the sum of $2,563,803.81, and granted that branch of the Charities’ cross motion which was for summary judgment, inter alia, limiting him under the will’s provisions to the sum of $400,000 as compensation for all services as an executor, whether performed as a preliminary executor or as an executor of the estate.

Continue reading

A Probate Lawyer said that this is a proceeding for the probate of the will of the deceased. The will was propounded by testator’s widow, and contested by and others, children of testator. From a decree of the supreme court, general term, (15 N. Y. Supp. 601,) reversing a decree of the surrogate’s court, Kings County, (10 N. Y. Supp. 744,) refusing probate, and directing issues for a jury, contestants appeal. Appeal dismissed.

The general term, on appeal from the decree of the surrogate, which admitted to probate the will of 1881, and the codicil thereto, and denied probate to the will of 1887, on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and undue influence, reversed the decree ‘on questions of fact,’ and directed issues to be framed and sent to a jury for trial. The appeal to this court is taken on the ground that the general term had no power to review the facts, for the reason that the notice of appeal to the general term did not specify that the appeal was taken on the facts, but was, in general terms only, ‘from the decree and each and every part thereof.’ It is insisted that upon such a notice only questions of law presented by exceptions were brought before the general term, and that it could not reverse on the facts upon a consideration of the weight or preponderance of evidence, or because, in its judgment, the facts should be re-examined by a jury. The appellants rely in support of this contention upon section 2576 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section, which is found in the article relating to appeals from orders or decrees of surrogates, is as follows: ‘The appeal may be taken upon questions of law, or upon the facts, or upon both. If it is taken from a decree rendered upon the trial by the surrogate of an issue of fact, it must be heard upon a case to be made and settled by the surrogate, as prescribed by law for the making and setting of a case upon an appeal in an action.’ The claim is that, if the appellants desire a review upon the facts in the Supreme Court, they must so specify in their notice of appeal. Section 2576 does not require that such specification should be made, nor is it elsewhere prescribed, but this, as is claimed, is an implication from the language of the section. We are not satisfied that this contention is well founded. Section 2574, which prescribes how an appeal may be taken, declares that it must be by written notice, to be served, ‘referring to the decree or order appealed from, and stating that the appellant appeals from the same or from some specified part thereof.’ It is not required that the grounds of the appeal shall be stated in the notice. If, under section 2576, it is necessary to specify that the appeal is upon the facts, in order to give jurisdiction to the appellate court to review them, it would seem equally necessary that, if the appeal was upon the law, it should be so specified, in order to enable the court to review the exceptions. We think section 2576 was intended to declare affirmatively the power of the general term to review both the facts and the law on appeals from surrogate’s decrees, and was not intended to regulate the practice in bringing appeals, except to require that, when the appeal is from a decree rendered upon a trial of an issue of fact, a case must be made and settled, as on an appeal in an action. That was done in this case. The question of undue influence in procuring the will of 1887 was the issue litigated, and upon which the determination of the surrogate proceeded, and a large volume of testimony was presented to the general term, and that court, on reviewing the facts, reversed the decree, and ordered issues. The notice of appeal informed the respondents that the entire decree was challenged, and the case prepared exhibited both the questions of fact and law involved. The rule that in an action tried by a jury a motion for a new trial is necessary to enable the general term to review the facts is based upon reasons wholly inapplicable to the case of a trial before a surrogate. We are of opinion that the point urged is not well taken, and that the general term had jurisdiction to review the facts. The question is new, and it is proper, under the circumstances, to dismiss the appeal, leaving the parties to be governed by the order of the general term. All concur.

Are you involved in a similar case? Seek the help of Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation.

Continue reading

In this probate proceeding, two non-marital children have moved to have their status as children entitled to benefits under the after-born statute (EPTL 5-3.2) determined. In a prior decision (Dec. No. 80, Feb. 7, 2008), the court ruled that any question regarding a party’s status in a probate proceeding should be determined as a preliminary matter and stayed all other proceedings.

Rather than question any of the underlying facts, such as proof of paternity, the parties have consented to have the motion submitted assuming the truth of the movant’s allegations for a determination of whether as a matter of law those allegations state a cause of action entitling the claimants to after-born status.

The decedent died on January 13, 2007, survived by eleven children; three from a first marriage, four from a second marriage and four alleged non-marital children. The will offered for probate benefits only one child from the first marriage, the petitioner and named executrix, who inherits the entire estate valued at several million dollars.

Continue reading

The father of decedent, died on April 7, 1901, a resident of the county of New York. His will was duly admitted to probate in the Surrogate’s Court of New York County on April 22, 1901, when letters testamentary were issued. The estate and trusts created under said will are administered in that county. The decedent in this proceeding had a power of appointment of the remainder of a trust created for her benefit under the will of her father. In 1942 decedent’s son, assigned his interests in said trust under the will of the father to several assignees. The propounded instrument which is the subject of this proceeding nominates decedent’s son, and his wife as executors. By her will decedent appointed one-third of the appointive property to her son, and two-thirds to a granddaughter. Citations were issued in this estate to the assignees of said son who do not oppose the probate of the will but object to the granting of letters herein to their assignor and his wife, the nominated executors.

The exercise of the power of appointment relates back to the estate of the decedent. The donor merely utilized this decedent as an instrument for the devolution of the title of his, donor’s property. The objectants have no interest in the estate of this decedent. Their interests are solely in the estate of the decedent as assignees of decedent’s son who was named in decedent’s will to receive one-third of the remainder interest of the trust created for decedent’s benefit under the will of the decedent. Whatever payments may be due the assignees will be directed in the Surrogate’s Court of New York County under the will of the decedent. As executors of this decedent, respondents will not receive any money from the Estate of the decedent in which the movants have any interest. The objections to the qualification of the nominated executors are dismissed and the motion for summary judgment is granted. Settle decree on notice.

In another case is an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (241 App. Div. 768, 270 N. Y. S. 981), entered March 30, 1934, which affirmed a decree of the Kings County Surrogate’s Court admitting to probate an instrument, dated October 30, 1930, propounded as the last will and testament of the deceased, and a codicil thereto dated June 9, 1931. Objections were filed to the probate of these instruments on the ground that they were not the last will and codicil of the deceased; that they were not duly executed; that at the time they were executed the deceased lacked testamentary capacity; and that their execution was obtained by undue influence, fraud, and conspiracy. Following a trial before a jury and after the contestants had rested, the surrogate, over the objection and exception of contestants, directed a verdict admitting the instruments in question to probate.

Continue reading

In this probate proceeding both the petitioner and the respondents ask that the propounded holographic instrument be admitted to probate but differ sharply as to construction of the will. The text of the provisions of the will reads:

‘First, after my lawful debts are paid, I give to my wife all my personal as well as all my real property wherever located together with any mixed property I may have. ‘I hereby appoint my beloved wife executrix without bond of this my last will and Testament. ‘In case of accidental and simultaneous instant death of both myself and my wife and in such case only do I direct my sister in law of 253 East 78 St New York City to be the executrix without Bond of this my last will and Testament and give and bequeath to her all my personal as well as all my real property wherever located together with any mixed property I may have. ‘I hereby appoint my wife to be Executrix of this my last Will and Testament.’

The parties have entered into a stipulation providing: ‘That the wife of the decedent herein, died on the 13th day of February, 1957, a resident of 519 West Chester Street, City of Long Beach, Nassau County, of natural causes. ‘That the decedent herein, died on the 20th day of March, 1957, a resident of 519 West Chester Street, City of Long Beach, Nassau County, of natural causes.’

Continue reading