Guardianships

March 21, 2011

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

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.

March 10, 2011

Undue Influence In Changing Life Insurance Beneficiary Can Be Difficult to Prove

by Jules M. Haas

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has previously discussed the naming of a beneficiary on a life insurance policy or other asset such as a pension or retirement account. Upon a person’s death, these assets are paid directly to the named beneficiary (assuming the beneficiary is surviving) and are not part of the probate or intestate administration.

It is of utmost importance that the beneficiary designation clause be completed properly and clearly so that the intended beneficiary can receive the asset proceeds following a death. These designations should be well thought out as part of an overall estate plan.

Unfortunately, controversy and Court litigation often arises when beneficiary selections are changed while a person is elderly, or experiencing medical problems or when the change occurs shortly before death. Such changes are particularly dramatic when the new beneficiary is a person who has not been involved in the decedent’s life until recently such as a new friend, spouse or health aide. The initial reaction to such change, particularly from the now disinherited beneficiary – such as a child, long-time friend or other seemingly natural beneficiary selection – is that the change could only be the result of some kind of undue influence perpetrated upon the decedent at a time when he or she was vulnerable, weakened due to illness or old age or incapacitated.

However, despite the ready appearance of wrongdoing, actually demonstrating that the decedent did not intend the change and that the new designation should be voided is not an easy task. Such was the situation in a recent case entitled Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Felecia Bradway, decided in the Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, 10 Civ. 0254. As reported in the New York Law Journal by Mark Hamblett on February 28, 2011, the decedent, Bradway, had designated his daughter as the beneficiary of a $300,000 life insurance policy in 1998. However, in May, 2008 Bradway changed the beneficiary designation to a co-worker whom he married later that year. Bradway had been taking a narcotic pain medication and was diagnosed with liver cancer shortly before his wedding. Bradway then died in March 2009.

The disinherited daughter claimed that the new spouse, “who was 30 years younger than Mr. Bradway, influenced him by proposing marriage while he was ‘terminally ill’ , by attempting to isolate him from his family following his cancer diagnosis and by failing to provide him with proper medical care after the diagnosis.”

As reported in the article, notwithstanding the daughter’s allegations, the Court found that “there was not enough evidence for a ‘reasonable finder of fact’ to show Mr. Bradway’s mind was subverted when he made the May 27, 2008 designation of beneficiary.”

The Bradway case demonstrates that it is important to make clear beneficiary designations as part of an estate plan. Probate, Guardianship, and other Court proceedings provide avenues to attack designations that may seem particularly improper under the circumstances. Such attacks however, require the proper presentation of proof to succeed.

March 2, 2011

New York Article 81 Guardians Are Bound By The Court To Act Properly

by Jules M. Haas

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has discussed the powers and obligations of a property management and personal needs Guardian. When a person is found to be incapacitated and a Guardian is appointed, the Court maintains scrutiny over the actions of the Guardian.

One of the safeguards provided by Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) is that the Court may require the posting of a bond (MHL Sec. 81.25). A bond is essentially an insurance policy issued by a surety company that insures payment to creditors and others entitled to receive the incapacitated person’s funds in the event the Guardian misappropriates those funds. The Court will set the amount of the bond based upon the value of and income from the assets of the incapacitated person. Since the Court appointed Guardian must qualify for the bond, the surety will check the Guardian’s credit and financial history. A poor credit history may result in the denial of a bond and, thereby, prevent a person from qualifying as a Guardian.

It is a good practice, which I follow, to have the bonding company review a client’s credit before he or she files a petition for appointment as a Guardian so that we can be certain the client can qualify if appointed.

Another safeguard provided by the law is contained in MHL Section 81.31 which requires that the Guardian file an Annual Report with the Court every May. The Annual Report contains information concerning the Guardianship financial transactions that occurred during the prior year along with information regarding the incapacitated person’s physical and mental condition. This information is typically reviewed by a Court Examiner. In the event the Court Examiner finds information that shows improper conduct on the part of the Guardian, the findings will be reported to the Court.

A recent case where a Guardian’s actions were found to be improper was reported by Daniel Wise in the New York Law Journal on January 6, 2011. The Article entitled Guardian Must Return Funds Paid to Family For Ward’s Care, described a case where a lawyer-guardian was required by the Court to repay to the incapacitated person’s estate over $100,000.00 that the Guardian had paid to a company that provided care to the Incapacitated Person. It was found that the company was controlled by the Guardian’s spouse. Judge Charles J. Thomas also ruled that the Guardian had to forfeit commissions and legal fees.

Guardians are required to be diligent in the performance of their duties. Both Guardians and the families of the Incapacitated Person often require legal representation to fully understand and protect their interests.

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.

February 17, 2011

New York Estate Fiduciaries and Guardians Must Consider Internet Information and Assets

by Jules M. Haas

New York Executors, Administrators and Guardians have the responsibility of ascertaining, protecting and collecting the assets, documents and other effects of the estate or incapacitated person they are appointed to oversee. The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has previously discussed fiduciary responsibility concerning asset determination and protection.

An interesting aspect in this area of responsibility concerns assets, information and accounts that are internet or web-based. A fairly basic question is what becomes of a website or Facebook account or other internet based information after a person dies or becomes incapacitated. An insightful article by Ken Strutin entitled What Happens to Your Digital Life When You Die? appeared in Law Technology News on January 26, 2011. As noted in the article “the majority of state laws make no specific provisions for information assets such as those stored in the cloud.”

An Article 81 Guardian or a New York Executor faces issues not only with collecting and preserving these internet items, but may need to be able to value them for tax purposes or possibly for disposal by sale. For the most part, the estate settlement process will be in unchartered waters when dealing with such matters. As a New York Guardianship and Probate attorney, I have assisted clients in resolving many different and complex issues regarding asset identification, collection and disposal. Fiduciaries that are appointed by the Court bear a lot of responsibility in resolving the diverse issues they encounter in administering an estate. It is important for them to consider all matters thoroughly and make decisions that avoid Court criticism.

February 4, 2011

New York Guardianship Property Transfers Require Court Approval And Review

by Jules M. Haas

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has previously discussed numerous aspects concerning the appointment and duties of an Article 81 personal needs and property management Guardian.

Very often the assets of the incapacitated person includes real property such as a home. It may become necessary for the Guardian to sell the home if the incapacitated person no longer can live in a community setting due to illness, or if the maintenance of the home is unaffordable or if the proceeds from the sale are needed for the person’s long term care.

Other considerations may be presented where the home might be transferred to a relative in conjunction with Medicaid or estate planning and thereby preserved for the incapacitated person, as well as family members, to live in.

An interesting situation involving such a transfer arose in the case of White v. Prister, 912 N.Y.S.2d 127 (2nd Dept. 2010). In White, a daughter had been appointed as guardian of the person and property of her mother, Lila. Following the appointment, the daughter moved into the mother’s house and after a few years asked the Court for permission to transfer the title to the house to the daughter/guardian “for Medicaid and estate planning purposes.” The Court approved the transfer and the deed to the house was placed in the daughter’s name.

After Lila died, her great granddaughter, on behalf of Lila’s estate, sought to set aside the deed. The Court refused to undo the transfer and dismissed the great granddaughter’s case finding that the daughter was allowed by the family to live in the house for many years after Lila’s death without any objection. Thus, the equitable concept of “laches” or undue delay prevented the voiding of the deed. The Court found that it would have been inequitable to force the daughter to give up the house at such late date.

January 28, 2011

Guardianship, Special-Needs Trusts In New York Should Be Considered When Caring For Those With Disabilities

by Jules M. Haas

As we begin 2011, we encourage you to take special care in planning for the welfare of a child with special needs. Consulting a New York City guardianship attorney is a great way to bring peace of mind to the issue of caring for a child or adult-child in your absence.

In other cases, a New York Article 81 Guardianship proceeding can assist in caring for an older loved one who is no longer able to manage their affairs.One aspect that is often overlooked is the need to provide for the care of such dependents in your New York estate plans. Leaving an estate to a loved one can prevent them from collecting state or federal aid. Life insurance proceeds can lead to the same unwanted result. Establishing a special-needs trust is one option that will ensure the long-term care of a loved one in your absence.

When a child with disabilities reaches the age of maturity, a parent or loved one may petition for guardianship under Article 17A of the New York Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act. More than 280,000 people in New York are believed to have mental retardation and another 24,000 have cerebral palsy. The New York State Mental Hygiene Law defines mental disability as:

-Attributed to mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, neurological impairment, autism or other closely related condition.

-Originates before a person reaches the age of 22 and has continued or is expected to continue indefinitely.

-Constitutes a substantial handicap.

Once such guardianship is established, you will be able to continue to assist an adult child with special needs in whatever capacity is necessary. However, caring for them after your departure will still require sound estate planning, including a special needs trust or a supplemental needs trust. These investment vehicles will permit your estate to go toward the care of a loved one with special needs without jeopardizing government benefits, Medicaid or other assistance.

November 30, 2010

New York Incapacity Under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law Does Not Void All Prior Contracts

by Jules M. Haas

A New York Court can appoint a Guardian of the person or property for an individual who is found to be incapacitated. As previously discussed in the New York Probate Lawyer Blog, Mental Hygiene Law Section 81.29(d) provides, in part, that “the Court may modify, amend, or revoke any previously executed. . . contract, conveyance, or disposition during lifetime or to take effect upon death, made by the incapacitated person prior to the appointment of the guardian . . . .”

While the Court has the power to undo agreements that were unfairly entered into while a person was incapacitated, such power will be exercised by a Court only after a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances in each instance. In JPMorgan v. CV Haedrich, reported in the New York Law Journal on November 3, 2010, the Court had appointed a Guardian for the person and property of Oden and Marie Haedrich in or about 2005. Prior to such appointment in or about 1999 and 2003, the Haedrich’s had taken mortgage loans. Beginning in or about 2008, payments on the mortgage loans stopped and a foreclosure action was commenced. The Guardian then asked the Court to void the mortgage foreclosure on the ground that the Haedrich’s did not have the capacity to enter into these loans.

The Court, however, refused to vacate the foreclosure. Essentially, the Court found that the loans were taken many years prior to the 2005 determination of incapacity. No credible evidence was presented by the Guardian that either Mr. or Mrs. Haedrich were incapacitated when the transactions occurred or that the lender knew of or was notified of any such incapacity.

As shown by the Court in the Haedrich decision, the mere determination of incapacity does not in and of itself overturn or void all past transactions by the incapacitated person. Specific demonstration of incapacity and/or notice at the time of the occurrence that a party is incapacitated is essential for a Court to revoke a transaction.

November 24, 2010

Thanksgiving May Offer Families Time to Discuss Estate Planning Issues

by Jules M. Haas

By some measure, more than half of all adults will die without a will. In some cases, the consequences for those left behind can be quite severe. Proper planning can ensure your estate goes to your loved ones, that you are protected from excess taxation, and that you can enjoy life with the peace of mind that comes with knowing your affairs are in order.

New York City Probate Attorney Jules Martin Haas and the staff at his law office wish each of you a safe and enjoyable Thanksgiving weekend with friends and family. These gatherings may be the perfect opportunity to open a general dialogue with relatives about such planning.These conversations do not have to be morbid. Nor do they need to be prying or invasive. By starting a conversation that includes younger relatives, our older loved ones will feel more comfortable and may be more apt to share. It will become apparent rather quickly whether they have done the proper planning, and whether the issue has been on their mind in a way that such a conversation provides the necessary outlet and relief.

At the very least, it can help put a loved one’s wishes on the record in front of the whole family. And it may be the catalyst necessary to prompt more thorough and proper estate planning. Here are some basic issues and talking points.

Intestate Estate: This is what happens to an estate without a will. It is distributed by probate court in accordance with state law, which means your estate will pass to your spouse and/or other close relatives in outward concentric circles (children, parents, siblings, etc.) The drawbacks are many and include an inability to choose heirs or to divide your estate in a manner of your choosing. Those omitted from an estate typically include step-children, former spouses, friends or domestic partners.

Trusts and Living Trusts: Trusts are not just for the rich and famous. Establishing a trust may allow your estate to bypass the probate court process. If your Will is probated it will become a public record for all to see. Establishing a trust may also have certain tax advantages.

Powers of Attorney: Powers of Attorney can serve a purpose but can also be ripe for abuse and are best narrowly tailored for a specific circumstance.

Living Will: Advanced Directives, Health Care Proxies and other similar documents allow you to make your wishes known and designate a person to carry them out in the event that you become incapacitated.

Guardianship: May be established to assist a person with managing their personal and/or financial affairs.

Special Needs Trust: Can be established to care for a loved one with special needs after your passing. Establishing such a trust can be critical to ensuring that an inheritance does not disqualify them from receiving government health care or other assistance to which they are entitled.

November 9, 2010

Government Calls into Question New York Probate Oversight of Guardianship Matters

by Jules M. Haas

The U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that probate courts are not doing enough to protect vulnerable older adults against exploitation by guardians appointed to look after their health and finances.

Experienced New York City probate attorneys are frequently called to help establish Article 81 guardianship over an adult who cannot handle his or her own affairs. In many cases, such formal guardianship arrangements are preferable to powers of attorney or other less formal ways of acting on a person’s behalf, which frequently fall outside a court’s review and can be more ripe for abuse.However, this review found that many court systems are also not doing enough to protect the rights even of those placed under formal guardianship. In such cases, it becomes even more important to have an experienced New York City guardianship attorney who understands the system and can make sure your rights are protected on both sides of the guardianship arrangement.

The GAO review found substantial issues in 45 states from 1990 to 2010. Some $5.4 million was illegally obtained from 158 incapacitated victims, usually seniors. In other cases, physical abuse or neglect was prevalent. In other cases, an inappropriate guardian — including those with criminal records — was permitted to be appointed.

The government watchdog found that the New York process in particular was flawed after it tested four states by submitting fictitious guardianship information. Those states were Illinois, Nevada, New York and North Carolina. The GAO used applications with bad credit and false social security numbers but nevertheless passed the certification process. It noted that individuals under financial strain were more likely to engage in theft and people with criminal histories could easily conceal them by submitting false social security numbers.

The GAO said the results raised questions about the effectiveness of the certification program in New York and the other states tested.

Whichever side of the guardianship case you are on, whether you are seeking guardianship, challenging guardianship, or have been appointed guardian and are defending your actions, consulting with an experienced guardianship attorney in New York is critical to protecting your rights throughout the guardianship process.