New York Probate Lawyer Blog

It is very common that a person who dies or is incapacitated receives health care and services that are paid for by government agencies in the form of Medicaid. As New York estate lawyers often encounter, a decedent who had been ill and unable to pay for his care through private insurance or personal funds probably would have had his care paid through Medicaid. Medicaid payments can cover persons who live at home or who reside in nursing homes or other facilities. Particularly where a person has had a serious illness with extensive hospitalization and nursing home stays, the expenses that are paid by Medicaid can be quite large. Under various state laws and rules, Medicaid is entitled to be reimbursed for its expenditures. This reimbursement typically occurs after a person dies if there are assets in his estate. It may be that the decedent passed away owning a home or other assets but had been receiving Medicaid coverage during his life.

It is the fiduciary obligation of an Executor or Administrator to make sure that all of the decedent’s debts and the claims against the estate are satisfied. Thus, the estate fiduciary is required to satisfy a claim for reimbursement that is asserted by the local Medicaid authority. Also, in the event the estate Executor or Administrator is aware that the decedent may have been receiving medicaid benefits, it is important to obtain information regarding this claim before distributing estate assets. Once the assets are distributed to beneficiaries, the Medicaid authority may attempt to obtain payment of the claim against the fiduciary personally and assert that the fiduciary should have known about the claim before he paid the beneficiaries. Estate settlement can be a very complicated process and the collection of assets and payment of a decedent’s debts often require the guidance of an experienced estate attorney. Continue reading

New York Estate Planning can involve many different aspects. In most instances, individuals assume that the need to consult an estate planning attorney only arises when a person has significant assets that may result in the imposition of Federal estate taxes or state estate taxes. In fact, even when there is no potential for taxes being imposed at death, the preparation of a Last Will is really a form of estate planning by avoiding the uncertainty of intestate administration.

When tax planning is or may be important, one of the more common planning methods is to use life insurance as a planning device. Life insurance can provide a means by which an estate can increase liquidity and provide funds to pay estate taxes and monetary bequests. A common use of insurance is to create an insurance trust that will own the insurance policy.  The trust will be separate from the decedent’s taxable estate and, therefore, not increase the taxes payable. Continue reading

When a person dies without a Last Will he is considered to have died intestate. Queens estate attorneys, like those in other counties, are familiar with the procedure to have an Administrator appointed to settle the estate. The Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA) and the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) provide the statutory rules and procedures for the appointment of a fiduciary. Typically, anyone who is interested in the estate settlement can petition the Court for the appointment of an administrator. However, the statutes provide an order of priority for the persons who can actually be appointed.

The procedures of the Surrogate’s Court can be very complex and confusing to family members who are faced with having to handle issues relating to a decedent. It is usually a good practice to obtain the guidance of a New York Administration attorney to assist with these matters. A recent case decided by Staten Island Surrogate Robert Gigante  on December 2, 2014 illustrates the problems that can arise when a person does not obtain the help of an estate lawyer. In Matter of Dinger, a grandson of the decedent petitioned the Court to have himself appointed as estate administrator. This petition was opposed by a daughter of the decedent. The grandson claimed that the decedent owned a cooperative apartment. However, the daughter asserted that she owned the apartment with her mother as joint tenants with rights of survivorship.  Such ownership would have kept the cooperative apartment out of the administration estate since it would have passed automatically by operation of law to the daughter.   Continue reading

A common issue that is found in many contested Guardianship cases and Estate matters is whether a person’s beneficiary designations or asset plan has been the subject of undue influence.    New York  City Estate Lawyers, like those throughout the state, are accustomed to having clients claim that the only reason the client was not named as a decedent’s beneficiary was because the individuals who did receive assets improperly influenced the decedent’s decisions. Undue influence is not an easy concept to prove or even to completely understand. Courts have recognized that undue influence is not easily determined.  Also, wrongful acts by one party over another are typically not as clear-cut as one person threatening the other.  The improper conduct is usually more subtle and subversive and may occur over an extended period of time.   In most cases the issue as to whether a person’s testamentary plan is the result of undue influence or improper conduct is a question of fact to be determined at a trial. Continue reading