Articles Posted in Estate Litigation

Published on:

Real estate is typically one of the most valuable assets comprising a decedent’s estate. Typically, a person’s residential house is a major asset. Many individuals also own commercial properties that may be used as a part of a business or may contain tenants. In view of the large worth of real estate assets it is common that the property is at the center of many estate battles.

A common occurrence appears to involve a pre-death transfer of the real estate interest to one person to the exclusion of others who would otherwise receive the property pursuant to a Last Will or through their rights of intestacy as a distributee of a decedent. Moreover, these lifetime transfers often occur when the decedent is elderly and suffers from physical or psychological conditions. Also, the deeds may be executed by persons acting as an attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney. Since these changes in property ownership appear to be improper and deprive potential beneficiaries of valuable inheritance rights, lawsuits in the Surrogate’s Court and Supreme Court frequently occur concerning ownership rights and the validity of the deeds reflecting the transfers.

A recent case decided by Kings County Justice Francois A. Rivera on February 20, 2014 provides a good example of a controversy created by real estate owned by a decedent. In Juliano v. Juliano, the decedent (“Beatrice”) had owned a home in Brooklyn where she lived with some of her adult children. Beatrice had made a Last Will in which she left her entire estate, which included the house, to her four children in equal shares. Approximately 6 years prior to her death it appears that Beatrice signed a deed transferring her entire interest in the house to her son to the exclusion of the other 3 children. However, it seems that the son receiving the property (“Frank”) did not accept or record the deed at the time it was signed by Beatrice but waited about 6 years to record it.

Interestingly, the Court voided the deed because it found that the gift was not effective due to the lack of proper acceptance by Frank at the time the deed was made. Additionally, although the Court found that there was a confidential relationship between Beatrice and Frank that would have provided a basis for a finding of undue influence, the Court declined to void the transaction on that ground since it had determined the deed was invalid due to the lack of acceptance.

As an estate litigation attorney, I have represented numerous individuals in situations where issues have arisen concerning the alleged improper transfer of real estate and other assets from a decedent to a family member or to a third party. These cases are typically presented in Surrogate’s Court proceedings and Supreme Court proceedings. Sometimes the issue is raised before a person dies and is litigated in a Guardianship case. The Guardianship Court has the power to void deeds and other transactions it finds to be improper due to the abuse of a power of attorney or the incapacity of persons making the transfer.

Continue reading →

Published on:

New York Will Attorneys are aware that there are many aspects of a decedent’s estate that can result in controversy and estate litigation. A recent case decided by Queens Surrogate Peter J. Kelly on January 22, 2014 entitled “The Matter of Hill” and reported in the New York Law Journal, contains many issues that are common to estate disputes. In Hill, the decedent had executed a Last Will that provided for a residuary clause leaving the balance of the estate equally to the decedent’s two daughters, Brenda and Marcia. The Will also contained a pre-residuary provision which specifically devised real property equally to the two daughters subject to a life estate in favor of Brenda.

Brenda lived at the real property premises with the decedent and became her attorney- in-fact in a power of attorney. Shortly before the decedent’s death Brenda used the power of attorney to transfer the real property from the decedent into Brenda’s sole name.

The transfer of the deed by Brenda as attorney-in-fact to herself is not an uncommon occurrence. Litigation by New York estate attorneys as well as Queens Guardianship Lawyers concerning such circumstances is often commenced to void the deeds in these transfers. Under both the estate laws and the New York Guardianship laws improper transfers of a person’s assets can be invalidated and the property or the proceeds thereof recovered. Moreover, an attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney has an obligation to account for his actions especially where there appears to be self-dealing by having transfers made for one’s own account. The Courts are more likely to find impropriety where a person abuses a confidential relationship by benefiting from his position of trust or authority.

In Hill the Court had previously found that the deed transfer by Marcia was voidable and the estate was able to recover title to the property. However, the dispute in Hill did not end. Since the real property had been transferred before the decedent’s death it was not part of the decedent’s estate when she died. As a result Marcia claimed that the property was subject to the rules of Ademption which effectively provide that when property that is specifically given under a Will does not exist when the decedent dies, the gift is essentially ignored. If the Court in Hill had applied the Ademption rule, then the real estate, once recovered, would have been disposed of under the residuary clause to the two daughters and not by the specific pre-residuary provision. This result would have eliminated Brenda’s life estate.

Notwithstanding Brenda’s improper and voidable transfer of the deed, the Court held that the recovery of the title to the property by the estate although occurring after the decedent’s death, prevented the application of the Ademption rule. The Court also stated that Maria had a fiduciary obligation to the estate to recover the deed and that she should not personally profit by not following the terms of the Will.

I have represented many clients in New York Guardianship cases and estates where it was necessary to recover property that was improperly transferred. As can be learned from Hill, the Courts are receptive to proceedings to rectify a breach of fiduciary duty by a fiduciary and to enforce the disposition of assets in the manner a decedent expresses in his Last Will.

Continue reading →

Published on:

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has previously discussed cases involving the disqualification of a person from inheriting from a decedent’s estate. Where a person murders another the New York Courts do not permit the murderer to profit from his wrongdoing. The wrongdoer is deemed to lose any inheritance he might receive from the decedent. This basic principal was recently affirmed by Nassau Surrogate Edward McCarty III in the case of Matter of Innocent Demesyeux decided on December 23, 2013 and reported in the New York Law Journal on January 6, 2014. In Demesyeux the Court was faced with the issue of determining whether a mother who killed her children would be disqualified from receiving a share of the wrongful death proceeds resulting from their death. The Court found that the basic principals of equity should prevent the mother from profiting where she apparently had the ability to know that her acts were morally wrong.

Disqualification of a person’s inheritance interests appears in other aspects of New York estate law. Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (“EPTL”) Section 4-1.6 provides that a joint tenant of a bank account forfeits rights of inheritance as to the joint account if convicted of murder in the first or second degree. Also, EPTL Section 4-1.4 provides a number of situations where a parent is disqualified from receiving a distributive share of a child’s estate. For example, under 4-1.4(a)(1) a parent is disqualified if he or she fails or refuses to provide for the child or if the child is abandoned. Similarly, EPTL Section 5-1.2(a)(5) provides that a spouse may lose inheritance rights if he or she abandons the other spouse. Under EPTL 5-1.2(a)(6) such rights may be forfeited if a spouse fails to support the other spouse. There are also instances where in the event a Last Will contains a “no contest” clause a person may forfeit any bequests under the Will if the clause is violated.

New York estate attorneys are aware that estate settlement and distribution often involve many unique and complex issues. The resolution of matters regarding the interests of potential beneficiaries and heirs at law requires the investigation of all facts regarding the decedent and the estate and determining whether and to what extent a Last Will or appropriate estate statutes apply. I have represented many clients including Executors, Administrators and beneficiaries of estates with regard to their responsibilities and entitlements.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Fiduciaries in New York such as Executors and Administrators are responsible for carrying out their tasks in settling an estate. As discussed in previous posts in the New York Probate Lawyer Blog, the job of a fiduciary includes identifying and collecting a decedent’s assets and paying a decedent’s debts as well as estate administration expenses and income and estate taxes.

While these tasks may be uncomplicated in many instances, each estate presents its own problems and challenges that must be confronted and resolved by the Executor or Administrator. For example, prior to death the decedent may have been a party to a lawsuit as a plaintiff or defendant. Following death, the estate representative must take the place of the decedent as a party to the court action and process the litigation to finality in the best interests of the estate. It may not always be easy for the fiduciary to decide if a settlement of such litigation is more advantageous than a final determination by a court or a jury. A fiduciary needs to be concerned as to whether the estate beneficiaries will find fault as to the course of action taken and attempt to have the fiduciary found liable for any loss or expense incurred.

Also, a fiduciary is responsible for protecting estate property and if he fails to do so this may be found to be a breach of fiduciary duty resulting in a revocation of his court appointment. New York Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (“SCPA”) Section 711 entitled “Suspension, modification or revocation of letters or removal for disqualification or misconduct”, provides various grounds upon which a fiduciary may be removed from office. For instance, paragraph 2 provides that a fiduciary can be removed if he has “wasted or improperly applied assets of the estate. . . .” In a recent decision by Manhattan Surrogate Nora Anderson dated November 26, 2013 and reported in the New York Law Journal on December 6, 2013 entitled Estate of Katherine E. Freeman, an estate administrator was removed. The Court found that the administrator engaged in serious misconduct that was harmful to the estate including the failure to pay maintenance on the decedent’s cooperative apartment which resulted in the apartment being sold in foreclosure.

Clearly, it is the responsibility of the estate representative to find and protect all of the estate assets. When a fiduciary acts improperly, the Court may surcharge him for the damage that is caused to the estate. I have represented many executors and administrators in Surrogate’s Court proceedings and estate litigation. It is important that the fiduciaries understand and are diligent in performing their fiduciary duties. I have worked closely with my clients in the estate settlement process to help them carry out their fiduciary responsibilities so that the interests of the estate and its beneficiaries are protected.

Continue reading →

Published on:

As discussed in a number of earlier posts in the New York Probate Lawyer Blog, a decedent’s next of kin (“distributees”) need to be determined in Surrogate’s Court proceedings such as probate and intestate administration.

The estate laws allow significant rights to a decedent’s surviving spouse. Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (“EPTL”) Section 4-1.1(a)(1) provides that in the case of intestacy, a spouse is entitled to receive $50,000.00 and one-half of an estate if a decedent is survived by a spouse and issue (i.e. children) and if there are no issue, the surviving spouse inherits the whole estate.

In many situations, estate disputes may arise as to the interests claimed by a spouse. New York Will lawyers are familiar with EPTL 5-1.1-A which is entitled “Right of election by surviving spouse“. Under this statute a spouse who is disinherited by the decedent can claim an amount that is equivalent to the greater of $50,000.00 or one-third of a decedent’s net estate. However, another part of the EPTL, Section 5-1.2, lists various instances where a spouse may be disqualified from receiving a share of an estate. For example, a divorce or a determination that a marriage was void will terminate spousal rights. Another section of this statute, paragraph (a)(5), provides that a spouse will lose his estate rights if he abandoned the spouse that is deceased and the abandonment continued until the spouse’s death. Paragraph (a)(6) also directs disqualification in certain cases where a surviving spouse fails to support the deceased spouse.

There have been numerous estate litigation cases over the years concerning whether a spouse’s inheritance rights have been terminated under these sections of the law. In a recent case decided by Brooklyn Surrogate Margarita Lopez Torres entitled Estate of Joseph E Nichols dated October 4, 2013 and reported in the New York Law Journal on November 15, 2013, Surrogate Lopez Torres upheld the right of the surviving spouse to claim an elective share of the estate. The Court found that the assertions by the decedent’s children that the spouse abandoned the decedent or failed to provide the required support were not valid and could not provide a basis to disqualify the surviving spouse. The Court dismissed the objections to spouse’s right of election.

The settlement of a New York estate often involves complex issues regarding the determination and status of distributees and their rights to receive a share of a decedent’s estate. Sometimes these issues are resolved through a kinship hearing. In other cases, different proceedings such as the determination of the validity of a spousal right of election may be the process for such review. In all Surrogate Court disputes, it is always helpful to obtain advice and guidance from a qualified estates and trusts lawyer.

Continue reading →

Published on:

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has discussed in earlier posts that a New York Last Will must comply with statutory requirements. Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) Section 3-2.1 entitled “Execution and attestation of wills; formal requirements” provides many of the rules regarding the signing and form of a Will.

For example, the statute provides that all Wills must be in writing and signed at the end of the document. Also, paragraph (a)(1)(B) states that anything that is added above a testator’s signature after a Will is executed is not to be given any effect. Paragraph (a)(4) requires that there shall be at least two (2) witnesses to the Will and paragraph (a)(3) sets forth that the testator must declare to the witnesses that the paper being signed is his Will.

While this statute and the many court cases interpreting the legal requirements of a Will and its execution may seem very formalistic, the underlying rationale is to insure that a testator’s last wishes and intentions are reflected in a paper that has a high probability of validity. The strict requirements surrounding the form and signing of Last Wills protect both the interests of the testator and the beneficiaries named in the document.

The legal requirements, however, do not prevent the many estate litigation controversies that frequently occur. Will contests are fairly common. In many of these contested Will cases, even though the document may appear to have been properly executed with sufficient witnesses, an objectant may claim that the testator did not have the capacity to make a valid Will, or that the testator was unduly influenced or coerced into signing the Will. These matters are typically dealt with in probate proceedings in the New York Surrogate’s Courts. Estate attorneys generally represent the parties involved such as the person petitioning for probate who is usually the named executor and the potential or actual Will objectants.

The formality of a written document that is witnessed by at least two people creates certainty for the disposition of assets of a decedent. An interesting case was recently reported by Eric Frazier in the Charlotte Observer on October 22, 2013. In an article entitled “Son of late developer Henry Faison suing his firm over Will“, it was reported that Henry Faison, a Charlotte, North Carolina real estate developer, had died just before he was to sign a new Will. Mr. Faison’s new estate plan would have left most of his multi-million dollar estate to a charitable foundation instead of to his company. The decedent’s two sons commenced a lawsuit to try and enforce the terms of the new Will which was not signed before Mr. Faison’s demise.

Mr. Faison’s situation is not uncommon. However, despite circumstances that may indicate that Mr. Faison was intending to change his estate plan, since there is no actual signed and witnessed paper to rely on, it can only be speculated as to whether the decedent may have had a last minute change of heart as to the disposition of his estate. It will be interesting to see how the Courts decide this case and whether any validity is given to an unsigned document.

Having a duly executed Will, Living Will, Health Care Proxy and Power of Attorney is important to preserve the creator’s intentions and eliminate any guesswork and, ultimately, estate settlement litigation, that might ensue in the absence of such documents.

Continue reading →

Published on:

A fiduciary appointed by a Court in New York is given various powers and authority to be used in carrying out the tasks of administration. The most common situation is the appointment of an Executor or Administrator by the Surrogate’s Court. In the case of an Executor, the decedent’s Last Will typically contains provisions that state the powers that the Executor is empowered to utilize such as the sale of the decedent’s real estate. The Will can limit or expand powers and the Executor is generally also afforded the powers that are provided by the statutes and rules such as Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (“EPTL”) Section 11-1.1 entitled “Fiduciaries’ Powers”. Paragraph (a) of the statute lists the various types of fiduciaries for which the statute applies such as executors and administrators. EPTL 11-1.1 then continues to provide the many and various powers that fiduciaries are entitled to exercise such as to invest and reinvest assets, to mortgage property, contest or compromise claims and sign deeds and other documents.

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has discussed in earlier posts the obligations that a fiduciary has to act properly and not engage in self-dealing or other activities that would constitute a breach of fiduciary duties. The fiduciary can be personally liable to estate or trust beneficiaries or others if he acts in a manner that causes harm or losses to other parties’ interests. In view of the potential liability facing a fiduciary such as an executor, the fiduciary may be hesitant to make a decision regarding a matter that is causing dispute among beneficiaries or for which there is no absolute way to determine the right or wrong act before a decision needs to be made. For example, there may exist a situation where a decedent owned real estate or a business and the fiduciary needs to sell the asset for estate settlement. Although it is necessary to obtain appraisals and competing offers prior to a sale, the estate beneficiaries may nevertheless have conflicting views as to whether the fiduciary obtained the highest price for the asset when it is sold. In such an instance, a beneficiary may file objections to the fiduciary’s accounting and seek to hold him personally liable for an alleged shortfall between the claimed value and the proceeds received from the sale.

Unfortunately for the fiduciary in New York, he will most times be responsible to exercise his business judgment in making these decisions. The Surrogate’s Court routinely refuses to advise an executor or administrator beforehand as to the proper decision he is to make. The Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (“SCPA”) does, however, contain provisions in SCPA 2107 that allow a fiduciary to obtain prior Court approval before acting at one’s own peril. This statute is entitled “Court may direct as to value, manner and time of sale of property and give advice and direction in extraordinary circumstances”.

The Surrogate’s Courts are not obligated to provide the fiduciary with “advice and direction” in all cases. The Court in its discretion must be convinced that there are sufficient extraordinary circumstances or other appropriate conditions before it will intercede and provide a fiduciary with direction. Most of the time the Court generally refuses to accept these types of cases and advises the fiduciary that it is their responsibility to exercise their business judgment in making administration decisions.

An executor or other fiduciary who accepts the responsibility of acting in such capacity needs to understand that he must proceed in a manner that does not breach his fiduciary duties. Moreover, while acting in good faith, the fiduciary may still be subject to situations where he is potentially liable for decisions made in the course of estate administration and that the Court will not usually provide advance guidance or protection regarding these matters. Thus, it is important that the fiduciary obtain advice from all possible and necessary sources such as a New York estate attorney, financial advisors, accountants, and other professionals relating to the particular situation involved.

Continue reading →

Published on:

The determination of kinship is important for all New York estate matters. The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has had many posts discussing this issue.

Firstly, an Estate Planning Lawyer typically asks a client to provide information regarding next of kin. This information serves many useful purposes. It can indicate whether a person’s estate might be the subject of a Will Contest or Will Dispute if a testator is leaving a large portion of an estate to individuals who are not close relatives. If this is the case, the estate planning attorney may suggest alternative methods of asset distribution such as lifetime gifts or a living trust. These vehicles would avoid the probate and Surrogate’s Court process which provides next of kin (i.e. “distributees”), with an automatic right to contest a person’s Last Will.

Kinship information is important when a Last Will is to be filed for probate. An Estate Lawyer needs to prepare a Probate Petition that includes all information such as names and address of a decedent’s distributees. These distributees are then provided with a notice issued by the Court called a Citation as to the probate proceedings.

When a person dies without a Will, the estate is subject to intestate administration. The estate beneficiaries are the persons determined under the New York statutes. Estates, Powers and Trusts Law Section (“EPTL”) 4-1.1 provides for the priority of the heirs entitled to inherit.

In many cases, the next of kin of a decedent are unknown or are distant in relation such as cousins. It may be that the county Public Administrator is needed to administer such estates and that a Kinship Hearing is required by the Surrogate’s Court to establish the identity of the persons entitled to the inheritance. As can be seen, it is important to have complete information regarding kinship for effective estate planning and estate administration. Although a person may prepare a Last Will leaving his or her assets to a close friend or other non-heir beneficiary, the probate of the Will may be delayed and unduly costly due to the search for decedent’s heirs who were not identified or considered when the estate plan was created. Of course, when a person does not prepare a Last Will, the likelihood of complications regarding the determination and proof of kinship increases dramatically.

A recent Ohio case, although not directly involving a kinship estate problem, points to the issues faced when a person needs to show familial relationships such as the whereabouts or status of a potential heir. As reported by Ryan Dunn in The Courier.com dated October 8, 2013, a fellow named Eugene Miller was declared legally dead by the Hancock County Probate Court in 1994, which was eight years after he disappeared. Mr. Miller recently reappeared and claimed to have just “took off” due to alcoholism and loss of his job. He then petitioned the Court to reverse its ruling that he was dead. The Court, however, refused to reverse its ruling because the three (3) year limit to change the ruling had passed. Mr. Miller was told by the Court that he was still considered to be legally dead.

While Mr. Miller’s predicament seems somewhat unique, it points to the uncertainties and difficulties that can be presented when attempting to show kinship and proving that an ancestor is deceased or that he was not survived by any living issue. EPTL Section 2-1.7 entitled “Presumption of Death From Absense; effect of exposure to specific peril” provides a procedure to have an absentee declared to be dead. Also, New York Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act 2225 entitled “Determination of distributees, devisees, legatees, beneficiaries and distributive and beneficial shares” provides a procedure to have a possible estate beneficiary declared presumatively deceased.

The estate planning and administration process is quite complex and the need to understand and determine kinship is essential.

Continue reading →

Published on:

The common view of the process of administering a decedent’s estate typically follows a progression whereby a person’s Last Will is probated, assets are located and collected, bills and taxes are paid, and finally the net estate is distributed to the estate beneficiaries. Generally, this description is applicable to many estates that are filed in the New York Surrogate’s Courts.

However, in numerous instances, the decedent’s family and the estate fiduciary, whether an Executor or Administrator, is faced with circumstances that might necessitate estate litigation or other Court proceedings to rectify wrongful acts that a decedent was subjected to prior to death.

For example, recently in a lawsuit brought by the pop star Michael Jackson’s family, it was alleged that Mr. Jackson’s promoter, AEG Live, was negligent in hiring the doctor that gave Mr. Jackson the drugs that resulted in his death. As discussed in an article by Eriq Gardner in the HollywoodReport.com on October 2, 2013, a jury found that the promoter was not to blame for the pop star’s death.

Another recent Court case in which a decedent’s heirs are seeking to protect rights or correct wrongs regarding a decedent involves the heirs of Frank Petrella who wrote an autobiography and a screenplay about the boxer, Jake LaMotta. Mr.Petrella died in 1981. As reported by Eriq Gardner in the HollywoodReporter.com on October 1, 2013, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments regarding the dismissal of the heirs lawsuit which claims rights to the film Raging Bull and seeks damages from
MGM and 20th Century Fox for alleged infringement of copyrights.

Another example of estate litigation intended to rectify a wrong practiced upon a decedent is shown in a decision by Queens Surrogate Peter J. Kelly in Estate of Rita Koch, decided on September 13, 2012 and reported in the New York Law Journal on October 4, 2013. In Koch the petitioner sought to obtain copies of the personal banking records of a person who was the attorney-in-fact for the decedent during the decedent’s life-time. The Court allowed the discovery in view of the evidence that showed that the attorney-in-fact breached her fiduciary duties to the decedent by self-dealing.

As demonstrated by the above examples, administration of a decedent’s estate sometimes may involve more than just settling affairs by collecting assets and paying expenses. New York Estate Lawyers are familiar with the many instances in which lifetime occurrences affecting the decedent may need to be rectified by post-death estate Court proceedings. These post-death proceedings can include wrongful death or negligence actions, discovery proceedings against third parties who converted or wrongfully obtained assets from the decedent prior to death or the enforcement of agreements or contracts that the decedent entered into and were not adhered to by third parties. In these cases and others Executors, Administrators and family members need to be vigilant to protect the rights and assets that a decedent is entitled to.

Continue reading →

Published on:

New York estate planning lawyers are aware of the need to prepare estate planning documents with clear and unambiguous language. There are many types of papers that require clarity of language. These include Last Wills, Living Trusts, Living Wills and Health Care Proxies.

The use of specific provisions contained in documents such as a Last Will and Living Trust is most critical since these papers reflect a person’s directions and intent regarding the disposition of assets. There may be various provisions in a Will or Trust that may provide for a gift of a certain sum of money to a named individual. There may also be more complex provisions that provide for disposition in a trust with various conditions or alternatives in the event individuals become deceased. Dispositions, especially to a surviving spouse may have certain tax consequences and there may be specific Will clauses that allocate the burden of paying estate taxes against particular bequests.

The use of definitive and non-confusing language serves to provide maximum effect to a testator’s or creator’s intent and prevents post-death confusion and disputes regarding the meaning of the language contained in the document.

The New York Surrogate’s Courts have been the forum of many cases where the wording in a Will or Trust has been the subject of Estate Litigation. Two recent cases provide examples of such estate disputes and the manner in which a Court might view such issues. In general, where language in a document is unclear, a “construction proceeding” is needed to resolve the issue. Recently, Manhattan Surrogate Nora Anderson was presented with a petition for a Will construction in Will of Edwin C. Scheurer. In a decision dated September 16, 2013 and reported in the New York Law Journal on September 23, 2013, Surrogate Anderson found that there was no ambiguity in the Will provisions that eliminated a bequest to one of the decedent’s grandchildren. Since the Will language was not ambiguous, the Court refused to allow any extrinsic or outside evidence to be used to interpret the testator’s intent.

A different result was reached, however, in In Re Estate of Phillips, 957 N.Y.S. 2d 778 (4th Dept. 2012), where the Appellate Division determined that the language in the Will was unclear and required that extrinsic evidence be used to determine the testator’s intent. Phillips is instructive since it presents a situation that at first glance would not cause a Surrogate’s Court Litigation. The Will in Phillips contained a provision whereby the testator gave his residence “and the plot of land appurtenant thereto” to his live-in girlfriend. A dispute arose as to whether the language “and the plot of land appurtenant thereto” referred to the land upon which the residence was built or to another plot of land that was adjacent to the residence and the land upon which it was situated. The Court found the language to be ambiguous and referred the case back to the Surrogate for further proceedings to consider the surrounding evidence of the decedent’s intent.

Estate planning in New York requires the creation of a number of different documents. While it is important to ascertain the intention and desire of the person who is creating the Will or Trust, it is equally necessary to express all intentions and directions in clear and unambiguous language to avoid Will Disputes and dissention between beneficiaries.

Continue reading →

Contact Information