Contested Estates

November 10, 2011

Inheritance in New York Can Be Forfeited Where the Beneficiary Causes the Decedent’s Death

Estate beneficiaries in New York can have rights to receive a share of a decedent’s assets in a variety of circumstances. The beneficiary can be named in the decedent’s Last Will or, if no Will exists (“intestacy”), the beneficiary may be one of the decedent’s next of kin (a “distributee”). As provided in New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) section 4-1.1 a distributee receives a share of the estate.

There are some situations, however, where the estate share may be forfeited by the beneficiary. For instance, EPTL 5-1.2 provides that interests of a surviving spouse may be lost under certain circumstances including the “abandonment of the deceased spouse” (EPTL 5-1.2(a)(6).

Another example of forfeiture that is recognized by the New York Surrogate’s Court provides that a person who murders another forfeits his or her right to inherit from the victim’s estate. This doctrine, which prevents a person from profiting from a wrongful act, seem fairly easy to apply where the murderer is convicted by the crime. The recent case of People v. Borukhova, a Queens, New York doctor who was convicted of hiring her cousin to kill her husband, would seem to satisfy the forfeiture criteria. However, all situations are not as clear. What if a person’s death was due to alleged neglect or mistreatment and no criminal proceedings were instituted against the alleged wrongdoer. Such a situation occurred in Matter of Karp which was decided by New York County Surrogate Kristin Booth Glenn on September 22, 2011 and reported in the New York Law Journal on October 4, 2011.

In Karp the sister and nephews of the decedent claimed that the “decedent’s wife of more than 15 years, intentionally or recklessly caused decedent’s death and should therefore forfeit her interest in [his] multi-million dollar estate.”

After reviewing the extensive evidence, the Surrogate found that the decedent died due to causes directly related to his own requests for termination of certain medical procedures and that no action on the part of his wife caused his death. Therefore, the Surrogate granted summary judgment dismissing the sister and nephews claim.

Although the claims in Karp were dismissed, the case does raise some interesting concerns for both pre-death care and post-death estate settlement. In Karp the decedent was very ill prior to his passing away. Issues may arise as to what responsibility a beneficiary may have to institute Article 81 Guardianship proceedings to have a guardian appointed to assist a person with health care and other personal needs decisions. When a person appears incapacitated can the failure by a beneficiary to assist him or her result in a forfeiture of an inheritance? Also, if a beneficiary is a health care agent under a Health Care Proxy, can he or she lose an inheritance in the event the health care decisions result in the decedent’s death?

Finally, after a person has died, Executors, Administrators and estate beneficiaries may examine the circumstances leading up to death in order to consider whether a proceeding for forfeiture is a viable consideration. Bronx probate attorneys, as well as probate lawyers throughout New York, can review these matters and advise clients as to their rights.

June 14, 2011

Doomsday Profit Gets Inheritance In Queens Woman’s Will

by Jules M. Haas

CNN recently reported about a woman whose aunt gave nearly her entire estate of $300,000 to Family Radio, the non-profit California station that broadcast unsuccessful predictions about the end of the world.

Contested wills in New York probate court can be difficult because they require specific requirements other than a family member feeling slighted by a loved one who passed away. New York Estate and Will Lawyers have handled an untold number of these cases and are well-versed in this area of law. Whether it’s contesting a will or planning an estate, it is a good idea to seek professional guidance.Family Radio’s owner, Harold Camping, has grown to celebrity status in recent months with his predictions that May 21 would mark the return to Earth of Jesus Christ, which would lead to a rapture of believers followed by five months of hell on Earth by non-believers before the world ends. His followers traveled across the country in RVs with large signs plastered on the sides, picketed busy intersections and even purchased billboards in foreign countries proclaiming their predictions. Camping has now said he miscalculated the date, which he now believes is October 21.

As CNN also reported, the non-profit organization is operated largely by donations and brought in $80 million between 2005 and 2009, including $18 million in 2009 alone.

Apparently, $300,000 of these donations came from a Queens woman who died in May 2010. As news of the doomsday prediction made news leading up to May 21, a relative of the woman said she and her sister were each left only $25,000 from her aunt’s estate and the rest went to Family Radio.

While she believes her aunt was comforted by the radio’s discussions about heavenly treasures, she didn’t know it was the same group that was working people into a frenzy about the end of the world. Had her aunt lived to see the prediction fail, the aunt may have had second thoughts and might not have left her money to the organization. While the woman said she wasn’t in need of the money, other family members could have benefited from a larger bequest.

Sometimes family members can successfully challenge whether the loved one had the mental capacity to make the decisions they made in preparing their end-of-life documents. It’s also sometimes possible that executors and others involved in helping a person plan their will can unjustly influence their decisions.

These issues require court action and should only be tackled with an attorney who has the experience necessary to protect your inheritance and the integrity of a loved one’s estate.

May 31, 2011

Huguette Clark Case Should Get Interesting If Will is Contested in New York Court

by Jules M. Haas

New York Probate Lawyer Blog has already touched on the fascinating case of 104-year-old heiress Huguette Clark, who died recently in New York City.

What makes the situation unique is that Clark, who inherited a giant fortune from her father, a copper baron and one of the richest Americans at the turn of the 20th Century, was a recluse whom people rarely saw. She died at a hospital, where she lived for at least the last two decades, MSNBC.com reports. Now it is likely that her contested will could play out in the news, requiring an experienced New York City probate attorney to sort out the details.News reports of her reclusive lifestyle, despite owning an estate in Santa Barbera, Calif., a country house in New Canaan, Conn., and a 42-room apartment on Fifth Avenue in New York City in total valued at $225 million — none of which she lived in — led to a criminal investigation into how her affairs were being handled by a New York City attorney and accountant. No charges have been filed and both men told news agencies they handled her financial matters according to her wishes.

Last fall, family members went to a New York court asking that a guardian be appointed to look after her assets and well-being after the accountant and attorney banned them from visiting her, MSNBC reports. The attorney has admitted to soliciting a gift of $1.5 million after the Sept. 11 terrorism attacks to safeguard his daughter living in Israel, which may be a violation of New York ethics rules.

Huguette Clark’s father was a Montana senator at the turn of the century, who struck it rich in copper and real estate. Huguette was only briefly married and never had children. Although she inherited her father’s wealth, according to news reports, she rarely used it. Huguette was secluded in hospitals, even when she was healthy. She was guarded by fake names and paid servants.

Many fear the potential for estate fraud and undue influence where an elderly woman who is fabulously rich is being shut off from family members and giving millions of dollars to the people controlling her estate. The probate process is designed, in part, to ensure that an estate is not plundered.

Prior to death in similar cases, Article 81 of the New York State Mental Hygiene Law can come into play. Adult guardianship in New York applies when family members believe an older family member cannot manage his or her personal or property affiairs on their own or is susceptible to being victimized by others.

It’s important to be represented in Article 81 Guardianship matters by an attorney with decades of experience handling these types of cases. This area of probate and guardianship law in Manhattan and throughout the New York City Courts is complex and it is important to consult with an attorney with the knowledge and experience to assist you through the process.

April 27, 2011

A New York Will Contest May be Based Upon The Duress Of The Testator

by Jules M. Haas

The New York probate of a Last Will essentially requires the determination by the Surrogate’s Court that the Will is a valid document to provide for the transfer of the decedent’s estate. When a Will is admitted to probate, the Will becomes effective and estate assets are distributed as specified by the Will provisions.

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has discussed that the decedent’s distributees or next of kin have the right to object to the probate of the Will. The common grounds relied upon in contests are: (i) lack of proper execution of the Will; (ii) lack of testamentary capacity; (iii) undue influence; and (iv) fraud. Each of these grounds has its particular requirements of proof.

In a recent case concerning the Estate of Mildred Rosasco, decided by Manhattan Surrogate Kristin Booth Glen on April 5, 2011 and reported in the New York Law Journal on April 14, 2011, the Court recognized that an additional ground for a Will contest can be based upon “duress”. Duress differs from undue influence in that duress involves more of a threat or performance of a wrongful act that coerced the testator. In Rosasco the Court found that the basis for a finding of duress was present due primarily to physical violence that the estate beneficiary had displayed and the possible fear by the decedent that such violence would re-occur if she changed her Will. Therefore, the Court allowed the case to move forward toward a trial.

Instances of Will contests based upon more typical acts of undue influence are frequently presented to the Court. I have represented clients in these New York City probate matters in counties such as Brooklyn and the Bronx. In another recent case, Brooklyn Surrogate Diane A. Johnson allowed the proceedings to move toward trial where a 92-year old decedent had left his substantial estate to two administrators of the assisted living facility where he had lived during the final years of his life. The case of Estate of Ralph Besdansky, decided on April 12, 2011 and reported in the New York Law Journal on April 15, 2011, seems to present a more classic example of a Will procured through undue influence and abuse of a confidential relationship.

March 21, 2011

New York Decedent’s Burial Can Be Complicated By Conflicts Between Family Members and Guardians

by Jules M. Haas

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has previously discussed issues regarding the rights of relatives to make burial decisions regarding a decedent. New York Public Health Law Section 4201 entitled “Disposition of remains: responsibility therefore”, provides a framework for this decision-making by essentially giving priority to a decedent’s spouse and closest living relatives in descending order to determine disposal of the remains.

Notwithstanding the statute, a person may put into place his or her desires by pre-paying for a funeral or cremation, purchasing a burial plot or otherwise expressing in a Last Will certain desires or preferences.

Of course, situations constantly arise when survivors, whether relatives or fiduciaries such as guardians, have conflicting ideas as to the disposal of the decedent’s remains. Such was the situation in The Matter of Louis V.P., which was decided by New York State Supreme Court Justice Joel K. Asarch on February 22, 2011. In this case Louis V.P. was determined to be an incapacitated person under Article 81 of the New York Mental Hygiene Law. Guardians for his personal needs and property management were appointed. When Louis died at age 86, his sister, Vita, wanted Louis to be cremated. Vita was also a co-guardian of Louis’ property. However, Louis’ niece, Grace, who was Louis’ personal needs guardian, desired that Louis be buried in the cemetery burial plot that he had purchased approximately 35 years ago.

After considering all of the evidence, the Court noted that the desires of a decedent “regarding the disposition of his or her own remains are paramount….” The Court thus ruled that Louis was to be buried in the burial plot he had purchased since that was the method he apparently intended.

In another recent burial controversy reported in the New York Post on Thursday, March 17, 2011 by William J. Gorta, “Brooklyn heirs burned in cremation flap“, a Court ruled that a decedent’s third wife could not sue a funeral home and cemetery for having a decedent’s remains cremated at the direction of the decedent’s fourth wife. Apparently, the family was unaware of the fourth marriage.

Family conflicts can take many forms following a decedent’s death ranging from burial directions to Will contests and identification of distributees through kinship proceedings. I have represented clients in New York to help them resolve these issues and protect their family’s rights.

February 22, 2011

Contested Will Results in Settlement after Undue Influence Alleged with Dementia Patient

by Jules M. Haas

The beneficiaries of the estate of a wealthy Connecticut woman have agreed to settle a dispute over changes made to her Will after she was diagnosed with dementia, Bloomberg News reported.

Sadly, theft from the elderly and other forms of estate fraud are an all-too-common occurrence. A New York City estate planning attorney can assist residents with making estate plans that minimize such risks. In some cases, a loved one may file for Article 81 Guardianship in New York to take over the affairs of a vulnerable or aging loved one.And safeguards in probate court may also offer some protection. In still other cases, contesting a Will in New York may be the best option.

In this case, a trial over the $3.6 million estate was set to begin this month in West Harford. However, the sides have reached an agreement. The 89-year-old art teacher’s fortune was left to several colleges and other beneficiaries. Her husband, an aviation executive, died in 1999 and their only child passed away in 1963.

The dispute centered around two people who were close to her at the time of her death; they were set to inherit about $1.3 million after changes were made to her Will in 2006. The settlement will largely restore the directives of a previous Will. The changes eliminated large donations to several colleges and other beneficiaries, which led to the probate court challenge.

The decedent left $1 million to the University of Hartford to establish a scholarship in her daughter’s name. Jeanne died of meningitis while a freshman at the university. The 2006 Will cut the donation to just $100,000. Other schools that were set to receive money until being cut from the 2006 Will were Columbia University’s Teachers College, New York University and Parsons.

The settlement calls for the University of Harford to get about $900,000 and for the three New York schools to get about $160,000 each. The 2006 Will was completed shortly after doctors diagnosed her with dementia. She was moved to an assisted living facility a month later.

December 22, 2010

New York Individual Retirement Account Designations Must be Scrutinized To Avoid Beneficiary Conflict

by Jules M. Haas

On December 14, 2010, the New York Probate Lawyer Blog discussed the problems created when beneficiary designations are incomplete, confusing or ambiguous. These beneficiary designations can appear on many different types of assets such as annuities, life insurance, Individual Retirement Accounts, 401K benefit plans and other types of pension plans.

Designations that are confusing and changes made to the named beneficiaries, particularly changes made when a decedent is ill, incapacitated or shortly before death, create issues that can result in extensive and expensive estate litigation. In Mury v. Allen, Index No. 105439/2010 (Supreme Court, New York County) the Court was asked to determine a procedural issue regarding the standing or right of the plaintiff to challenge a beneficiary change made to an IRA account by a decedent shortly before his death.
In its decision dated November 22, 2010 and reported in the New York Law Journal on December 1, 2010, the Court found that the defendant failed to present sufficient facts to challenge the plaintiff’s standing. The details of the Mury case provide yet another insight into the need to provide clarity and diligence in preparing an estate plan that includes a Last Will and assets that pass directly to specifically named beneficiaries. In Mury, the decedent was an 86 year old widower at his death. He was survived by one daughter whom he disinherited in his Last Will in which he left his entire estate to his “former French mistress”.

The decedent had originally designated his wife as the beneficiary of his IRA. However, since his wife had predeceased him an issue arose as to who was the successor or alternate beneficiary of the IRA. Shortly after his death, a beneficiary change had been made to the IRA naming a home health aide who had been helping care for the decedent during the five (5) months prior to his death. Complicating matters further, was an issue as to the IRA contract terms and whether the decedent’s estate (i.e. his mistress) or his daughter would be deemed the IRA beneficiary if the beneficiary designation to the home health aide was voided by the Court.

Since the Court allowed the mistress, plaintiff, to continue with her lawsuit, the dispute over the IRA account will be ongoing with the obvious cost and upset to all involved.

December 14, 2010

New York Beneficiary Designations Can Avoid Estate Litigation

by Jules M. Haas

A significant distinction must always be recognized between assets of a decedent that are disposed of through estate administration and assets that pass to beneficiaries by operation of law. Estate administration assets are generally governed by the terms of a decedent’s Last Will or the laws of intestacy where no Will exists. Executors or Administrators control these dispositions.

Assets that pass by operation of law include property held in the form of joint tenancy or in the name of the decedent along with a named beneficiary such as a “totten trust” bank account. Designated beneficiaries that are named in life insurance policies, retirement plans or Individual Retirement Accounts also receive a decedent’s assets automatically after death. In these operation of law or automatic pay out situations it is imperative that careful attention be paid to the beneficiary designations. These designations should be carefully made so that a person’s estate plan is accurately and properly established. Additionally, incomplete, confusing or ambiguous beneficiary designations can result in costly and lengthy estate litigation the result of which may be that beneficiaries do not receive their intended gift.

The recent case of Li-Shan Wang v. Primerica Life Insurance Co., 09-CV-5522, which was before Judge Lawrence M. McKenna, Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, and reported in the New York Law Journal on November 17, 2010, is a perfect example of the complexities and convoluted issues that can be created by an unclear beneficiary designation. In a decision dated November 5, 2010 Judge McKenna was presented with procedural motions to dismiss and to amend the plaintiff’s complaint. As explained by the Court, the decedent, Salih Neftci, had obtained a life insurance policy with Primerica. This lawsuit was commenced by the plaintiff, Li-Shan Wang, the girlfriend of the decedent who claimed that the decedent intended to name her as the policy beneficiary. Opposing this assertion were the decedent’s children who claimed that the insurance proceeds were to be paid to them. Intermixed with these contentions was the affect of various letters sent by the decedent to the insurance company requesting changes to the beneficiary designation as well as the interpretation and legal meaning of certain language utilized by decedent. There was also the issue of the decedent’s capacity to make or change his beneficiary designation due to his illness.

In its decision the Court denied the children’s motion to dismiss the complaint and allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint. Therefore, it appears that the lawsuit will continue until settled or ultimately disposed of by the Court.

This case illustrates how the lack of attention to detail and clarity when preparing estate planning documents, such as beneficiary designation forms, can transform a simple matter of the payment of life insurance proceeds into a complex estate contest which results in unnecessary expense and distress for the intended beneficiaries. A New York Probate Attorney can help avoid these problems and can also provide representation in Court to enforce the rights of beneficiaries where the payment of proceeds is contested.

September 20, 2010

Fight over Benihana Steakhouse Chain Highlights need for Comprehensive Estate Planning

by Jules M. Haas

A probate court ruling has granted control of a family trust to the third wife of late Benihana founder Rocky Aoki, which could ultimately determine the fate of the Japanese steakhouse company, the New York Post reported.

New York City probate attorneys and estate planning lawyers are frequently called to assist in planning or administering estates that include a family business. The advantages of proper estate planning are many and may include trusts that bypass the probate process, as well as proper planning for the payment of taxes without forcing the liquidation or sale of a family business. The presence of multiple former spouses, and/or children, may also complicate the administration of an estate. But proper planning can go a long way toward ensuring that your wishes are followed after your death and that an estate’s administration is not subjected to long delays or excessive costs involving litigation.

The two-year court fight has resulted in Rocky’s third wife and widow being granted power over the trust that controls 38 percent of the steakhouse chain. The trust had been in the hands of his children, who were using the shares in an attempt to gain board seats and shakeup management, the Post reported. A lawyer for his widow, Keiko Aoki, said he expects her to become sole trustee by the end of the week.

The power shift came last week when a New York probate judge admitted Rocky’s Last Will and Testament for probate, rejecting an attempt by his children to block it. The Will calls for Keiko to be sole trustee of the entity controlling his shares until his children turn 45. Shares of Benihana were trading on the NASDAQ this week at $6.45 and are up 70 percent on the year.

September 14, 2010

New York Nonprofit Settles Estate Lawsuit Involving Former Detroit Piston’s Owner

by Jules M. Haas

A New York nonprofit group is among those that have successfully taken legal action against the estate of Williamson Davidson, the former owner of the Detroit Pistons.

Davidson died last year, leaving an estate valued at $5.5 billion. A total of three lawsuits have been filed in Oakland County Circuit Court and all have been quietly settled, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Best known as the owner of the Detroit Pistons basketball team, Davidson had philanthropic and business interests all over the world.

While some blame the economy for the reported increase in estate challenges, there are frequently very legitimate reasons for challenging the settlement of an estate in probate court. The Areivim Philanthropic group, a New York nonprofit, filed suit claiming Davidson was one of the group’s founders and had reportedly pledged $5 million in support.

Frequently it is the nonprofits that find themselves on the outside looking in for a variety of reasons, such as estate heirs who seek to prevent large estate donations to churches or other charitable organizations. Estate claims and challenges should always be handled by an experienced probate attorney in New York City. The organization settled for an undisclosed amount of money after its claim for the money was not paid by the estate.

In this case, various reports indicate the estate settlement may have been complicated by Davidson’s four marriages, children and step children. Further complicating the issue, is that much of his wealth was tied up in the Detroit Pistons and Guardian Industries, his privately owned glass-making company.

Frequently, a family business must be sold to settle an unplanned estate. Proper estate planning in New York can provide heirs with the means to pay estate taxes and other obligations without liquidating major assets.