New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 17, 2023

Appellate Division rejected objectant’s claims that beneficiary had turned testator against them. In re Eastman, 63 A.D.3d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

Undue influence in New York involves exerting improper pressure to manipulate a testator’s free will and control their testamentary decisions. Specifically, when one person strategically influences a testator to harbor negative sentiments against another individual, it constitutes undue influence. This could include actions like spreading false information, creating a distorted perception, or exploiting a position of trust to turn the testator against someone they would otherwise favor. In the context of wills, New York law seeks to ensure that the testator’s decisions are genuine and reflective of their true intentions, free from external coercion or manipulation.

In re Eastman, 63 A.D.3d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) involves a contested probate proceeding, where the objectant raises objections to the probate of the last will and testament of Laura Delano Eastman, citing fraud and undue influence. Central to the dispute is the alleged influence exerted by Marguerite Lewis, a friend of the decedent. The objectant, a beneficiary under the will, asserts that Lewis unduly swayed the decedent by casting the objectant in an unfavorable light after the termination of their relationship. Additionally, the objectant contends that the decedent was misled about the financial and physical well-being of another beneficiary, her sister Judith Adams, resulting in a purported decrease in her share of the estate.

Background Facts

Published on: May 10, 2023

Surrogate’s Court was not convinced of claims that a will was invalid. In re Quinn, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 31655 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In re Quinn, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 31655 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2018) was a contested probate proceeding centers around the last will and testament of Cecilia A. Quinn, dated July 26, 2010. The court faces a motion for summary judgment from the petitioner, Maureen Quinn, seeking to dismiss objections to probate. Simultaneously, the objectant, Eileen Quinn, launches a cross-motion, urging the court to sustain objections and deny probate based on allegations of lack of testamentary capacity, due execution failure, and fraud and undue influence.

Background Facts

Cecilia A. Quinn, survived by four children, left behind a will that triggered familial discord. Maureen Quinn, the petitioner and one of Cecilia’s children, initiated the probate proceedings, facing objections from Eileen Quinn, who challenged the will’s validity on multiple grounds including lack of testamentary capacity, failure to properly execute, fraud, and undue influence.

Published on: May 3, 2023

Disinherited grandchidren of testator object to probating will. Matter of Bianco 195 A.D.2d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

by Stephen Bilkis

Disinheritance of close relatives often sparks suspicions, with the disinherited parties speculating on potential untoward events that led to their exclusion. While such changes to an estate plan may raise eyebrows, they alone fall short of serving as conclusive evidence for claims of undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, or fraud in the absence of additional supporting factors.

In Matter of Bianco 195 A.D.2d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), the disinherited grandchildren challenged the testator’s will. With allegations of fraud, claims of undue influence, and the crucial question of testamentary capacity, this case navigates the complexities of family dynamics, legal intricacies, and the pursuit of justice.

Background Facts

Published on: May 1, 2023

In a wrongful death compromise case, the court determined that regardless of their mental health issues, a person cannot profit from their wrongdoing. In re Demesyeux, 978 N.Y.S.2d 608 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2013)

by Stephen Bilkis

In re Demesyeux, 978 N.Y.S.2d 608 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2013) the Surrogate’s Court considered an issue related to the wrongful deaths of 3 children and who was entitled to receive benefit from the proceeds of a wrongful death lawsuit. The case was tragic, as it involved a mother who suffered from mental illness, killing her three young children. While typically the parents would be a minor child’s next of kin, entitled them to share in any wrongful death compensation awarded, this case was unique because one of the parents caused the wrongful death of the children.

Background Facts

Leatrice Brewer confessed to drowning her three children aged 1, 5, and 6, in the bathtub of her New Cassel apartment on Long Island in February 2008. After drowning them, Brewer placed the lifeless bodies of her children on a bed and attempted to end her own life by swallowing a toxic concoction of household cleaning chemicals. When this attempt failed to claim her life, Brewer resorted to jumping out of her second-story window. She survived.

Published on: April 26, 2023

Court considered who was the legal owner of financial accounts. Kagan v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., Inc., 62 Misc. 3d 1203 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

A beneficiary designation is a legal arrangement that allows an individual to specify who will receive their assets, such as life insurance proceeds, retirement account funds, or other payable-on-death accounts, upon their death. It is a critical aspect of estate planning, providing a clear directive for the distribution of specific assets outside the probate process.

The mental capacity to change beneficiary designations is significant because it ensures that individuals making such decisions are of sound mind and capable of understanding the implications of their choices. Mental capacity, in this context, refers to an individual’s ability to comprehend the nature and extent of their property, understand who might have a claim to their assets, and appreciate the consequences of designating or changing beneficiaries.

In the absence of proper mental capacity, challenges may arise regarding the validity of beneficiary changes. If someone is deemed mentally incapable at the time of altering a designation, it could lead to disputes, particularly if other interested parties argue that the changes were made under duress, coercion, or when the individual lacked the capacity to make informed decisions. Ensuring mental capacity during the modification of beneficiary designations helps maintain the integrity of the estate planning process and reduces the likelihood of legal contests surrounding these decisions.

Published on: January 9, 2023

Court determined that their was not sufficient evidence of lack of capacity or undue influence. Matter of Estate of Patricie Cabanne, 2020 NY Slip Op 51257(U) (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

If the language of a trust in New York is not clear, it can result in a dispute among the beneficiaries, as well as between the beneficiaries and the trustee. If the language of the trust is ambiguous or uncertain, the court may be required to step in and interpret the trust and determine the settlor’s intent. This may result in an outcome that is different from what the settlor intended.

In addition, the ambiguity or uncertainty may also lead to confusion and uncertainty among the beneficiaries, as well as the trustee, which can further complicate the administration of the trust. It is therefore important to ensure that the language of a trust is clear and unambiguous in order to minimize the risk of disputes and confusion.

In the Matter of Estate of Patricie Cabanne, a disputed developed between classes of beneficiaries as to how to interpret the terms of the trust.

Published on: January 4, 2023

Surrogate’s Court found that the language of the will was clear and unambiguous, and that the testator’s intent was to benefit the George Ballas Trust. Matter of Estate of George Ballas, 2020 NY Slip Op 50978(U) (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, the standard for will construction is that the court will seek to determine the testator’s intent, based on the language used in the will. This is known as the “plain meaning” rule. The court will interpret the language of the will to give effect to the testator’s intent, using the words in their ordinary and commonly understood meanings.

If the language of the will is clear and unambiguous, the court will give effect to the plain meaning of the words used. However, if the language of the will is ambiguous or susceptible to more than one interpretation, the court may consider extrinsic evidence, such as the testator’s declarations, to determine his or her intent. Overall, the goal of will construction in New York is to determine the testator’s intent as accurately as possible, and to give effect to that intent to the greatest extent possible.

In the Matter of Estate of George Ballas the court was asked to interpret the terms of a will with respect to the distribution of the residuary estate.

Published on: January 2, 2023

Medical evidence not sufficient to show lack of capacity. Matter of Estate of Paul Tucker, 2020 NY Slip Op 31604(U) (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

Lack of capacity to make a will in New York refers to a situation where the testator (the person making the will) does not have the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of his or her actions when executing the will. In order to have the capacity to make a will in New York, the testator must have a general understanding of the nature and extent of his or her property, the natural objects of his or her bounty, and the effect of executing the will. Lack of capacity may result from a variety of factors, including mental illness, dementia, or other conditions that affect cognitive functioning.

In a will contest in New York, medical evidence can be used to prove that the testator lacked the capacity to execute the will. This may involve presenting medical records, expert testimony from treating physicians, or other evidence to establish the testator’s mental state at the time the will was executed. However, just like with any evidence, the court will determine whether it is sufficient.

Background

Published on: January 2, 2023

Court determined that allegations of undue influence were speculative and not substantiated. Niola v. Sarno, 939 N.Y.S.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

The contested probate case in Niola v. Sarno, 939 N.Y.S.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) involves Maria Capuano’s will and a dispute centered on allegations of fraud and undue influence. In the context of a will contest in New York, fraud involves the intentional use of deceptive practices to manipulate or mislead the testator in the creation or execution of a will. To substantiate a claim of fraud, an objectant must provide clear and convincing evidence that the proponent of the will knowingly made false statements or engaged in deceitful conduct, with the specific intent to influence the testator’s decisions regarding the distribution of their assets. Fraudulent actions may include misrepresentations about the will’s contents, the testator’s assets, or other relevant information, leading to a disposition of property that differs from the testator’s true intentions. Proving fraud in a will contest requires a high evidentiary standard to ensure the validity and integrity of the testamentary process.

In the context of a will contest in New York, undue influence refers to a situation where an individual exerts improper or coercive pressure on the testator, compelling them to create a will that reflects the influencer’s desires rather than the genuine intentions of the testator. To establish undue influence, an objectant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the influencer engaged in conduct amounting to moral coercion, which significantly constrained the testator’s independent judgment and free will. This may involve tactics such as manipulation, intimidation, or exploitation of a confidential or fiduciary relationship. Courts scrutinize such claims closely, ensuring that the testator’s testamentary freedom remains intact and that the resulting will is a true reflection of the testator’s intentions rather than the product of external pressures.

Background Facts

Published on: December 28, 2022

Court of Appeals reversed decision related to whether a prenuptial agreement was unfair. In re Estate of Greiff, 703 N.E.2d 752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the case of In re Estate of Greiff, the court was asked to determine if a prenuptial agreement that limited what a surviving spouse inherited was fair. The decision turned on who had the burden of proof of showing unfairness.

Background

Helen Greiff (plaintiff) and Herman Greiff married when Helen was 65 and Herman was 77. The Greiffs signed reciprocal prenuptial agreements that waived their respective surviving spousal rights in the event of the death of the other. Herman’s will left his entire estate to his children from a prior marriage (the children) (defendants). After Herman died, Helen filed a petition seeking a spousal share of Herman’s estate. The children objected based on the prenuptial agreements.