New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 21, 2016

Court Decides Effect of Divestiture of AT&T Stock

by Stephen Bilkis

This is the first New York decision to consider the effect of the recent AT & T divestiture on a bequest of AT & T stock. This is a proceeding brought by co-administratrix, for a construction of article “SECOND” of the testatrix’s last will and testament. The testatrix died on September 13, 1985 at the approximate age of 89. The last will and testament of the testatrix, dated February 6, 1982 and a codicil thereto, dated September 27, 1984, were admitted to probate by this court on December 2, 1986. Letters of administration were issued to the petitioner and the respondent.

Article “SECOND” of the testatrix’s will reads as follows: “SECOND: I give and bequeath to each of the following legatees the following number of shares of capital stock of American Telephone and Telegraph Company owned by me at the time of my death …” and thereafter names seventeen legatees, each to receive varying numbers of shares. A total of 1,625 shares of stock were bequeathed under Article “SECOND.” The petitioner is a legatee of 350 shares. Under Article “SIXTH”, the testatrix bequeathed the residue of her estate in equal shares to and among the heirs and the petitioner. It is undisputed that the testatrix owned 2,262 shares of AT & T stock at the time of execution and at the time of death. Therefore, 637 shares pass under the residuary.

The value of the testatrix’s gross estate is approximately $600,000 comprised primarily of stocks, valued at approximately $350,000.00, a house and property, valued between $175,000 to $225,000, jewelry and miscellaneous items, valued at approximately $9,500.00 and two bank accounts, in the amount of approximately $15,000. The testatrix’s closest relatives are four first cousins, once removed, of which only one receives a bequest under the will. The need for a construction arises as a result of the reorganization of AT & T, which occurred between the date of the execution of the will, February 6, 1982, and the date of the testatrix’s death, September 13, 1985.

Published on: May 20, 2016

Motion Brought to Change the Domicile of the Decedent

by Stephen Bilkis

A motion has been brought before this court to determine whether a domicile of the decedent was changed from New York State to Texas. The facts indicate that on July 5, 1983, the decedent, signed a Power of Attorney appointing his grandson, as his attorney-in-fact. The document was in standard form with a clause stating, this Power of Attorney shall not be affected by the subsequent disability or incompetence of the principal.”

Around August of 1983, the decedent’s mental and physical condition deteriorated as he was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. As a result, he eventually was placed in the Gowanda Nursing Home on February 13, 1984. In June of 1984, having difficulty administering his grandfather’s affairs, the grandson who lived in Texas, moved his grandfather to a nursing home located in Texas. Three weeks later, the decedent died. However, prior to his death, the bulk of his assets had been transferred to Texas and preliminary negotiations for the sale of his home in New York were already underway. The actual contract for the sale of his residence was signed on September 28, 1984, after his death. The issued presented by this case is whether the donee of a Power of Attorney, the grandson could change the domicile of the donor, the decedent.

Although this question is one of first impression, there are several cases which the court has considered in reaching its decision. The first case is Matter of Webber, 187 Misc. 674, 64 N.Y.S.2d 281, Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, June 1946, which stands for the proposition that a fiduciary may change his ward’s residence but ordinarily cannot change his ward’s legal domicile. In the Webber case, the decedent, a domiciliary of Kings County, was adjudicated incompetent. Subsequently, she was removed from Kings County and took up residence in a hospital in Westchester County. During her stay at the hospital in Westchester County, the committee of her property with the consent of the committee of her person, sold her dwelling in King’s County as well as all of her personal belongings.

Published on: April 30, 2016

Plaintiff Seeks to Enforce Charging Liens

by Stephen Bilkis

The law firms seek to determine and enforce charging liens pursuant to section 475 of the Judiciary Law. The liens would secure fees claimed by the Firms for legal services to respondent under a retainer agreement dated July 10, 2006 (the “2006 Retainer”). The Firms represented him in a decade-long dispute among several family members, involving various real estate holdings and family trusts. The dispute had been punctuated by at least two abortive settlements, the latter one in 2004. On January 3, 2008, however, the family internecine battles ended in a global settlement placed on the record in open court and then further memorialized in a written stipulation implemented by a closing on August 27-29, 2008. The liens now claimed by the Firms relate to his share of the proceeds of that settlement.

Discovery having concluded, the Firms and respondent have cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The issues raised on these motions involve the validity of the 2006 Retainer, its allegedly wrongful procurement, and, if it is valid, the meaning of several of its terms and the extent (if any) to which William’s obligations under it are subject to conditions that have not been satisfied. The Firms acknowledge that the sums to which they are entitled for work resulting in the 2008 settlement cannot be fully determined without a hearing. Respondent for his part asserts that a hearing is needed to determine the Firms’ fees for hourly services in the litigation preceding that settlement.

The 2006 Retainer was drafted and executed on its letterhead. As described below, the Retainer provides for fees in respect of both settlement-related work and litigation-related work. Settlement-related work gives rise to two types of fees: a flat fee and a performance fee, both contingent upon the effectuation of a settlement. Settlement itself is defined as “a settlement among substantially all of the descendants of the decedent and the trusts and estates thereof.”

Published on: April 29, 2016

Petitioners File Construction Proceeding to Determine Effect of Tax Exoneration Clause

by Stephen Bilkis

The executors have instituted this construction proceeding, prior to the filing of Federal and New York estate tax returns, to determine the effect of a tax exoneration clause, paragraph second and request a reformation or interpretation of paragraph eleventh, which creates a pre1969 residuary, multiple, split-income, charitable remainder trust so as to qualify it for a charitable deduction under U.S.Code, tit. 26, § 2055 as amended by the Tax Reform Act of 1969 (TRA).

The testator died on September 9, 1973, age 92, leaving a daughter, age 64, as his sole distributee, and a granddaughter and three great-grandsons. His will, executed on December 19, 1967 was admitted to probate and letters testamentary issued to petitioners on October 1, 1973. Paragraph second of the will provides: ‘I direct that all my funeral, administration expenses, just debts, and all estate and inheritance or succession taxes (without apportionment) be paid as soon after my death as may be practicable.’

The residuary probate estate, after deducting the pre-residuary outright and in trust bequests, but before estate taxes, is $845,580. Petitioners allege that the loss of the charitable deduction because the trust is not a charitable annuity trust under TRA would increase the estate tax by $163,000. It should be noted that prior to December 31, 1969, the estate would be entitled to a charitable deduction since the amounts payable to the charities could be readily determined. Before proceeding with the construction of paragraphs second and eleventh of the will, the court is called upon to determine a question of jurisdiction, which appears to be of first impression.

Published on: April 28, 2016

Court Discusses Residuary Clause of Will

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding to construe and reform Article III, the residuary clause, of the last will and testament of the decedent so as to enable the estate to qualify for an unlimited New York estate tax marital deduction. While an application to reform a will to enable the estate to qualify for a deduction for New York estate tax purposes and not federal may be uncommon, it is permissible.

The decedent died on July 21, 1988 survived by a spouse and three children. His will, dated December 14, 1979, was duly admitted to probate on December 19, 1988. Under Article III of the will the residuary estate, which comprises the entire estate with the exception of some personalty previously bequeathed to his wife, is divided into two trusts, Trust A and Trust B. Under Trust A, the decedent bequeathed in trust for his wife the following: “A pecuniary amount equal to the maximum marital deduction allowable to my estate for Federal estate tax purposes ($250,000 or 50% of my adjusted gross estate, as the case may be, less any adjustment required for marital deduction gifts made by me during my lifetime), less the aggregate amount of marital deductions, if any, allowed for interests in property passing or which have passed to my wife otherwise than by the terms of this Article, and less also the amount if any, required to increase my taxable estate to the maximum amount as to which, considering all deductions and credits allowable to my estate, there will be no federal estate tax payable by reason of my death.”

Published on: April 27, 2016

Plaintiff Moves for a Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint for Payment

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff moves pursuant to CPLR § 3213 for an Order granting summary judgment in lieu of complaint for payment allegedly owed on a promissory note. “Defendants” or “the Estate”, as executors of the Estate of the decedent cross-move for summary judgment dismissing this proceeding pursuant to § 1810 of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act.

This case arises from a loan transaction between plaintiff and the decedent a real estate developer. Prior to his death, he was a 55% owner in Flatbush Extension, LLC (“Flatbush Extension”), which owned properties located at 67, 75, and 85 Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn. On or about March 27, 2007, U.S. Bank and Flatbush Extension entered into a secured loan agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) pursuant to which the parties agreed that Flatbush Extension could borrow up to $50,000,000 in connection with the development of a luxury condominium project (“Flatbush Extension Project”).

Published on: April 26, 2016

Sister Petitions for Allowance of a Claim Against the State

by Stephen Bilkis

In this proceeding the sister of the decedent individually and as administratrix with the will annexed of the estate of the deceased, for the allowance of a claim against the estate of deceased husband of which respondent is executor. Judgment of the Special Term allowing the claim in part, was affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Appellate Division, and claimant appeals.

In 1903 the husband and his wife, lived in Brooklyn. The wife owned a building at Classon Avenue, in a part of which she lived with her husband. On January 17, 1903, she made her will, and on March 27, 1903, she died. By her will she made her husband executor and gave her sister, $1,000. She then provided: ‘Fourth. I give and bequeath to my beloved husband all of the rest and remainder of my estate both real and personal to have and to hold the same to him, his heirs and assigns forever, with the understanding that at the decease of the said husband all of the estate which he shall derive under this will which shall then remain by him undisposed of he shall give and turn over to my sister.’

Published on: April 25, 2016

Court Discusses Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

In a proceeding to probate the last will and testament of the decedent respondent appeals (1) from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated October 14, 1992, which (a) denied her motion, inter alia, to declare that the decedent was domiciled in Florida at the time of his death and to resettle a decree of the same court, dated August 7, 1992, to provide that the decedent was not a New York domiciliary, and (b) granted the administrator’s cross motion for a decree declaring that . validly exercised her right of election and that the decedent was domiciled in New York at the time of his death, and (2) as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated March 17, 1993, as directed the Dime Savings Bank to deliver the entire balance in Account No. 800003241 to the administrator.

The Surrogate erred in finding that the decedent was a domiciliary of New York at the time of his death as the appellant demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent had changed his domicile from New York to Florida. Contrary to the recitation in the August 7, 1992, decree and plaintiff’s contention, the appellant did not stipulate that New York was the decedent’s domicile. The record of the proceedings before the Surrogate on July 7, 1992, does not reflect any such agreement.

Published on: April 24, 2016

Plaintiff Seeks to Recover Damages for Breach of Contract

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, which was commenced in the Supreme Court, New York County, transferred to the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, and joined with a probate proceeding the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated November 29, 2011, as awarded the plaintiff interest at the rate of 18% per annum upon each installment payment due and owing to the plaintiff individually and in his capacity as preliminary executor of the estate of the decedent, payable by the defendant from the date each payment became due, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same decree as is in favor of him individually and against the defendant in the principal sum of only $480,000 and is in favor of him in his capacity as preliminary executor of the estate of the decedent and against the defendant in the principal sum of only $480,000.

The plaintiff, individually and in his capacity as the executor of the estate of his mother, commenced this breach of contract action against the defendant to recover monthly installments due and owing both to him personally and to the estate beginning in February 2006, pursuant to a stock purchase agreement executed in September 1996. In exchange for shares of stock in a closely held corporation, defendant agreed to pay the total sum of $1,800,000 in monthly installments over the course of 15 years. The agreement provided for the monthly payment of $5,000 for the first five years, $10,000 for the next five years, and $15,000 for the final five years, with all payments inclusive of interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

A prior determination, this Court modified an order of the Surrogate’s Court so as to grant those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the breach of contract causes of action. The Surrogate’s Court entered a decree upon that determination in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant, both in his individual capacity in the principal sum of $480,000, and in his capacity as the executor of the estate in the principal sum of $480,000, as those amounts equaled the sum totals of the monthly payments due beginning in April 2006. In addition, the Surrogate’s Court awarded the plaintiff prejudgment interest upon each monthly payment from the date it became due at the rate of 18% per annum.

Published on: April 23, 2016

Plaintiff Brings Case to Determine Disposition of Real Property

by Stephen Bilkis

In a probate proceeding in which an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to real property, for ejectment, and for injunctive relief was transferred from the Supreme Court, Kings County, to the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated January 28, 2010, as, after a nonjury trial, and upon a decision of the same court dated May 19, 2009, determining that a certain deed dated June 6, 2002, is null and void and dismissing their first affirmative defense, and upon a decision of the same court dated October 13, 2009, determining that a certain deed dated May 9, 2001, was not procured through the exercise of undue influence and dismissing their third affirmative defense, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them determining that the plaintiff holds in fee simple absolute certain real property as described in the deed dated May 9, 2001.

“In reviewing findings made following a nonjury trial, this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking account in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses”. In this case, the testimony established that the deed dated June 6, 2002, was not “entitled to be recorded” until it was resubmitted with the appropriate fees attached. Accordingly, upon our review of the record, we find no error in the determination of the Surrogate that since the deed dated June 6, 2002, was not recorded, it was not delivered to the defendants prior to the decedent’s death.

The court said we decline to disturb the Surrogate’s determination that the deed dated May 9, 2001, was not procured by undue influence. The defendants failed to submit evidence supporting their contention that a confidential relationship existed between the plaintiff and her parents, who executed the deed, or that the deed dated May 9, 2001, was procured by the exercise of undue influence.