New York Probate Lawyer Blog

March 7, 2012

New York Last Wills Should Express The Testator’s Intent

The preparation of a New York Last Will is an important part of a person’s overall financial plan. The initial step that should be taken is to fully assess and understand the goals that the person making the Will wants to achieve. This process can be summarized as formulating and clearly expressing the intentions that are to be spelled out in the Will provisions. For example, who are the persons that are to benefit from the Will provisions and in what manner or proportion are they to receive these benefits. Beneficiaries can vary from spouses and children to more distant relatives, friends and charities.

It is important at this juncture to keep the estate plan simple. The New York Probate Lawyer Blog recently discussed aspects of the Federal estate tax law such as “portability” of the marital deduction between spouses. While estate planning is essential, it is more important at the outset to develop the basic plan or intent regarding the individuals or organizations that the testator (the person to whom the Will belongs) wishes to benefit. The tax planning and Will structure can then be developed so as to promote or carry-out the basic intent. A Last Will that has complicated tax provisions and trusts may be a great legal document but it is not useful unless it gets the assets to pass to the intended beneficiaries in a clear and efficient manner. Simplicity has its virtues.

The recent death of pop-star Whitney Houston provides an example of a simple yet effective Last Will. It was recently reported by MTV in an article by Gil Kaufman dated March 8, 2012, that Whitney Houston’s Will was written in 1993. In the Will, Ms. Houston’s entire estate was left to her only child, her 19 year old daughter, Bobbi Kristina Brown. It seems that the Will provided for a Trust under which Bobbi is to receive some of the assets at age 21, then some at age 25 and the balance at age 30. Ms. Houston’s mother is named as Executor and her brother and sister-in-law are named as Trustees.

This type of plan is typical for persons with young children and provides a straight forward map for the Trustees to make periodic payments to a young person over time as they get aclamated to handling and being responsible for large sums of money following the death of a parent. I have drafted many Wills for clients which contained similar Testamentary Trusts.

Part of the process in planning is to consider an appropriate payment period since the ages at which Trust Funds can be paid to the Trust Beneficiary are completely within the discretion of the Testator to determine in the Will provisions. Trustees should also be given discretion to make additional payments to beneficiaries which allows the trust to have more flexibility and accommodate unforeseen events.

Last Wills, Health Care Proxies, Living Wills, Living Trusts and Testamentary Trusts all have provisions that express the intent of the creator of these documents. Formulating and then expressing one’s intentions is the first, and perhaps most important, step in creating an effective estate plan.

The extent to which a testator’s intentions can be measured has recently been the subject of a major estate litigation occurring in Massachusetts. As reported in the Portland Press Herald on February 25, 2012, a Massachusetts Merchant left a Will 351 years ago that provided for the nation’s oldest charitable trust in Ipswhich, Massachusetts to fund the local public schools. Recently, the trustees have attempted to forego the Will provisions and convert the local trust property comprised of cottages into condominiums. As reported in the article, the current residents have opposed this plan “saying it violates the sacred intent of Payne’s Will. . . .” As shown by this controversy, even after 351 years, a testator’s intent is still the foundation for the administration of the decedent’s estate.

February 29, 2012

New York Estate Settlement Requires the Payment of the Decedent’s Debts

by Jules M. Haas

The administration of a New York estate requires that estate fiduciaries, such as Executors and Administrators, determine and resolve debts that are left by a decedent.

Debts and liabilities can take many forms. A decedent may have owned a home or other real estate. Such assets can have mortgage debts as well as judgments or other unpaid monetary liens such as municipal environmental control board violations, building code penalties, mechanics liens and property tax assessments. The estate fiduciary is obligated to discover all of these liabilities, determine the amount that may be validly due and then formulate the best manner in which to satisfy the outstanding balances. It is very common for the decedents’ real estate to be sold and the sales proceeds used to pay off the liabilities that relate to the real estate such as the mortgage. However, the sale of the real estate may take many months or years depending upon the marketplace. Meanwhile, mortgage payments and taxes can continue to come due and accumulate. Foreclosure may be a real threat to preserving the value of the estate’s property. These are all problems and issues that an estate fiduciary must solve as part of his or her fiduciary duty.

Estate liabilities may also be in the form of business obligations such as leases, credit card bills, medical bills and pending lawsuits. Manhattan probate attorneys as well as estate attorneys throughout New York regularly advise and help their clients who are Executors and Administrators as to the manner in which to protect the decedent’s estate in these types of situations.

I have represented many individuals where it was necessary to uncover and investigate the validity of liabilities that could be costly to an estate. Working closely with clients, these issues are reviewed and resolved to protect the interests of the estate beneficiaries and satisfy the obligations of the fiduciary.

It should be recognized that the decedent’s obligations are generally only enforceable against the decedent’s estate. Estate beneficiaries are usually not liable for any of the decedent’s debts and the estate fiduciaries, such as Executors, are only liable for these debts as representatives of the estate. There is usually no personal liability on the part of the Executor or Administrator for a decedent’s debts. Moreover, a creditor cannot bring a lawsuit against the decedent’s estate until a fiduciary is appointed by the Court. In a recent case entitled Rotwein v. Murray, decided on February 15, 2012 by Judge Michael A. Ciaffa of the Nassau County District Court, and reported in the New York Law Journal on February 28, 2012, the Court dismissed a lawsuit by a doctor for medical services performed for a decedent prior to death. The doctor had sued the decedent’s wife as “Executor” of the estate. However, since the doctor failed to provide the Court with any proof that the wife, or anyone else had in fact been appointed as Executor, the lawsuit was dismissed. Rotwein shows that without the actual appointment of an estate fiduciary, there is no one who is authorized to represent the decedent’s estate that can be subjected to a lawsuit.

February 22, 2012

Estate Tax Rules Impact Estates of New York Decedents

by Jules M. Haas

New York estates are subject to many requirements relating to taxes. Estate taxes can have a major impact on the estate administration process since the estate fiduciary such as the Executor or Administrator is responsible for timely preparing the estate tax returns and paying the tax that may be due. New York decedent’s estates may be subject to both New York State and Federal Estate Tax.

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has previously discussed revisions that were made to the Federal Estate Tax at the end of 2010. These new rules terminate at the end of 2012 unless extended or modified. Beginning in 2011 the basic amount of exclusion from the Federal Estate Tax was increased to $5,000,000 per individual. Under the new law, to the extent that the exclusion amount was not used for a deceased spouse, the unused amount could be transferred to the surviving spouse to be used to offset his or her estate tax. This transfer, called Portability, could conceivably allow the second to die spouse to have an exclusion of 10 million dollars.

In order to qualify for Portability, the Executor or Administrator of the first spouse to die must make an election on a timely filed Federal Estate Tax Return. A Federal Estate Tax Return is due to be filed within 9 months after death and a 6 month automatic extension can be applied for. The IRS recently issued a notice which provides additional time for filing the estate tax return for decedent’s who died during the first six months of 2011. See article by Michael Cohn dated February 17, 2012, “IRS Extends Deadline on Estate Tax Portability Election.” This extension of time would allow for the election of the portability option.

Fiduciary duties in settling an estate can be very extensive and complicated. Advise from probate attorneys and tax professionals is essential for an estate to be handled properly and efficiently. Estate assets need to be identified, valued and collected and bills, debts and other expenses paid. All of the estate financial information needs to be retained and organized so that it can be reported in the Estate tax return and accounting papers. Failure by a fiduciary to properly handle these financial and estate tax matters can result in damage to an estate and a breach of fiduciary duty for which a fiduciary may incur personal liability.

I have represented many fiduciaries over the years and assisted them with the numerous estate settlement tasks and tax reporting duties that they are responsible for completing. The welfare and interests of the estate beneficiaries are of utmost importance and it is essential to protect these interests by effectively processing the estate finances.

February 15, 2012

A New York Last Will May Require Proof Of Kinship

by Jules M. Haas

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has discussed different areas concerning estates of decedents such as Last Wills, Kinship, Probate and Administration, as well as Article 81 Guardianships. In many instances there is a combination of issues and problems that estate beneficiaries and fiduciaries face before estate settlement can be finalized. A recent case entitled Estate of Veronica Tesler, decided by Kings County Surrogate, Diana A. Johnson on January 11, 2012 and reported in the New York Law Journal on February 6, 2012, provides a typical example of estate administration that faced many problems.

In Tesler, the decedent, Veronica Tesler, had been determined to be incapacitated prior to her death. As such, the Court had appointed Guardians for her person and property. Also, prior to her death, Veronica had signed a Last Will in which she left her estate to her nephew and appointed him executor.

While Veronica’s preparation of a Last Will was sound estate planning, the nephew predeceased Veronica. Apparently, Veronica did not provide for any alternate disposition of her property. The result was that she effectively died intestate (i.e. without a Will), because there was no provision in her Will for an alternate beneficiary. Tesler demonstrates that it is always best to provide for alternate beneficiaries in a Last Will as well as alternate Executors. The Brookyn Probate of Veronica’s Will was thwarted by this apparent oversight.

Since Veronica died intestate her estate beneficiaries needed to be determined by the intestacy statutes of New York. Here, Veronica’s maternal cousins filed a petition with the Court to obtain Letters of Administration. However, since the maternal cousins could not provide information regarding Veronica’s paternal next of kin (“distributees”), the Court appointed the Public Administrator to handle the estate affairs. The Public Administrator is a public official whose function is to administer estates in various circumstances such as where no family member or no family member of close enough kinship in the case of intestacy is available.

After the Public Administrator completed the administration of Veronica’s estate such as collecting assets and paying bills and debts, the Public Administrator filed an accounting with the Surrogate’s Court. It was at this time that the maternal cousins were required to demonstrate at a Kinship Hearing that they were Veronica’s sole distributees and entitled to receive her entire estate.

Kinship cousin cases can be very complex and require proof in the form of documents such as birth records, death records, marriage certificates, obituaries, census reports and also witness testimony to show which persons actually are the decedent’s sole surviving next of kin. I have represented clients in these proceedings. The use of professional geneologists and investigators is also essential in proving kinship.

In Tesler, the decedent’s maternal cousins were finally able to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that they were the decedent’s sole surviving heirs. The case shows how despite preparing a simple Will, very complicated estate administration proceedings may be needed to settle an estate. Advice from an experienced New York Estate attorney is essential both to prepare an estate plan that can avoid complicated litigation and to help family members succeed in protecting their inheritance rights.

February 8, 2012

New York Estates May Be Affected by Marital Agreements

by Jules M. Haas

Under New York Law, spouses enjoy protections regarding rights to share in the other spouse’s assets. While both spouses are alive, divorce laws such as “equitable distribution” provide a framework for the disposition of assets between spouses. However, when one spouse dies, rules provided by the New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law and the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act come into play. Aspects of other statutory rules also must be considered between spouses, both alive and deceased, such as property concepts of ownership in the form of joint ownership or tenancy by the entirety.

During the course of a marriage, spouses may prepare Last Wills, as well as other papers such as pre-nuptial agreements or separation agreements. These agreements may obligate a spouse to provide certain benefits for the other spouse such as maintenance (i.e., alimony) and a paid up life insurance policy. Generally, these agreements are considered contracts and if a spouse dies without satisfying the obligations under the agreement his estate may be found liable for payments he failed to make during life. Additionally, these pre or post martial agreements can provide for a waiver of rights to share in the other’s estate or to act as executor or administrator of the estate.

During estate settlement the requirements of these agreements must be reviewed and considered. Experienced probate attorneys representing executors and administrators typically review these documents so that the estate fiduciary can fully understand the impact the decedent’s lifetime agreements will have on estate administration.

Two recent Surrogate’s Court cases demonstrate how such agreements can affect the final settlement of an estate. In the Matter of Griffin, decided by Monroe County Justice Edmund A. Calvaruso on September 29, 2011 and reported in the New York Law Journal on October 24, 2011, the decedent had signed a Separation Agreement with his wife prior to death. When the decedent died he and his wife owned a house as tenants by the entirety. The agreement had provided that the house should be sold and the sales proceeds divided between them. Among other issues decided by the Court, it was determined that notwithstanding the agreement, following the decedent’s death since the parties were still married, the surviving spouse was entitled to the full proceeds from the sale of the house. The house was not sold until after death. Since the house was still owned by the decedent and his wife as tenants by its entirety at his death, title to the entire house passed by operation of law to the surviving spouse as surviving tenant by entirety and the wife’s property rights as a tenant by the entirety were not terminated by the separation agreement.

In Matter of Piyavan Chantarasmi [a/k/a Matter of Bruan], decided by Westchester Surrogate Anthony A. Scarpino on January 26, 2012 and reported in the New York Law Journal on February 23, 2012, the decedent had signed a Pre-Nuptial Agreement. The agreement provided among other things that he would leave 70% of his estate to trusts to be set up for his children in his Will. The decedent died Intestate (without a Will), due to an accident and, therefore, did not establish the trusts as required by the pre-nuptial agreement. The Court allowed the Estate Administrators to draft and create the trusts for the children as was required by the agreement.

Griffin and Chantarasmi both show that Estate Executors and Administrators must review all agreements and obligations relating to the decedent so that estate administration is properly handled. I have represented estates where these types of agreements had been entered into by the decedent and have advised the estate fiduciaries regarding the implications of these matters.

February 1, 2012

New York Non-Marital Children Can Inherit From Their Father

by Jules M. Haas

A New York estate proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court requires the participation of all interested parties. First and foremost, a decedent’s distributees (next of kin) must be identified so that proper notice, usually in the form of a Citation or Notice, can be sent to the parties at their current address. A due diligence search must be made to determine both the identity and address of all distributees. Both Probate and Intestate Administration proceedings require that these parties be included in the case. Failure to properly include necessary parties in Estate proceedings, particularly where estate litigation is involved, can create a defect whereby the Court’s final determination may be subject to being found void.

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has previously discussed issues involved where a decedent-father had children but was not married to the child’s mother at the time the child was born. These non-marital children – distributees – usually face an uphill battle to show that they are, in fact, children of the decedent, and that they are entitled to a share of the decedent’s estate or other rights they are given as distributees in the Court process.

New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law Section 4-1.2 entitled “Inheritance by non-marital children”, sets forth the grounds and manner by which a non-marital child can demonstrate his or her relationship. The statute provides that a non-marital child “is the legitimate child of his mother.” However, with respect to his father, unless there is some Court Order or official determination of paternity, the most common avenue to prove kinship is to follow the statutory direction and provide “clear and convincing evidence” that “the father openly and notoriously acknowledged the child as his own.” The statute also provides for proof by “genetic marker testing.”

I have represented individuals who sought to inherit an estate where it was necessary to present evidence to the Court that satisfied EPTL 4-1.2. A hearing is commonly held by the Surrogate or a Court referee and documents and witnesses are presented to satisfy the legal requirements of open and notorious acknowledgement.

In a recent case decided by Westchester Surrogate Anthony A Scarpino on January 19, 2012 and reported in the New York Law Journal on January 27, 2012 entitled, Matter of the Estate of Michael Konstantin, issues regarding proper notice of Surrogate’s Court proceedings and proof of kinship of a non-marital child converged. In Konstantine, a proceeding was commenced by a non-marital child to vacate the probate of the decedent’s Last Will and the distribution of millions of dollars of wrongful death proceeds on the ground that the non-marital child was not included as a party to the prior proceedings and was entitled to receive a share of the proceeds. Based upon the evidence presented to the Court, the Surrogate found that the child presented some evidence that “the decedent openly and notoriously acknowledged the non-marital child as his own” and also showed that genetic marker testing was a proper method of discovery. Therefore, the Court directed that the decedent’s other children submit to genetic marker testing which has a high probability of showing whether the non-marital child had a common father.

Surrogate’s Court cases require the assistance of experienced estate attorneys who are familiar with the rules and procedures of estate settlement to protect the interest of the parties interested in a decedent’s estate.

January 25, 2012

New York Guardianship May Involve Many Family Members with Contentious Relationships

by Jules M. Haas

The appointment of a Guardian under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law (“MHL”) is subject to the procedures set forth in the statute. The proceeding is commenced by filing an Order to Show Cause and Verified Petition with the New York Supreme Court. The petitioner contains a significant amount of information concerning the alleged incapacitated person (“AIP”) including a designation of the AIP’s ability to manage activities of daily living (MHL Section 81.08).

Manhattan Guardianships, as well as Guardianship proceedings in other New York counties, require that notice of the proceeding be given to the AIP’s spouse, parents, adult children, adult siblings and the persons with whom the AIP resides (MHL Section 81.07).

Information regarding the AIP’s family may not always be readily available. This is particularly so where the Guardianship proceeding is commenced by a non-related party such as a New York Department through Adult Protective Services or a medical facility or a nursing home.

It is not uncommon for a group of relatives to be at odds concerning the appointment of a Guardian. Different individuals may have competing views as to whether a Guardian should be appointed and, if so, who the most appropriate person is to act as Guardian of the Person or Property. Sometimes, one of the parties to the Court action has already been exercising control over the AIP’s property and personal affairs, possibly through the use of a Durable Power of Attorney or Health Care Proxy. Such person may resent interference from other family members and try to restrict their access to the AIP or involvement with decision making. In these situations, a full hearing of the competing claims and assertions can be held by the Court in order to ascertain what is in the best interest of the AIP.

A Bronx Guardianship case in which competing family views were presented to the Court was recently decided by the Honorable Alexander W. Hunter, entitled Matter of G.V.S., decided on December 16, 2011 and reported in the New York Law Journal on January 23, 2012.

In G.V.S., the AIP was a 73 year old person who became incapacitated due to a stroke. A Guardianship Petition was filed by the person’s daughter. Testimony at the Court hearing was given by the daughter, two sons, the person’s long-time companion, the person’s son-in-law and brother. Family members had complained that the petitioner-daughter had tried to control the AIP’s affairs and had excluded them from contact with the AIP.

Although the Court appointed the daughter as Guardian of the AIP’s person and property, the Court directed that she was not allowed to prevent the other family members from having access to the AIP and that she must keep them informed concerning the AIP’s health and medical condition.
G.V.S. demonstrates that a Guardianship proceeding not only involves matters regarding the AIP’s ability to care for his or her affairs, but also issues concerning the friends and relatives who might be involved in the person’s physical care and property management. Guardianship attorneys and their clients need to review and evaluate all of these aspects when commencing a Guardianship case so that the Court can be presented with all of the relevant information to make a determination that will be for the long-term benefit of the AIP.

January 19, 2012

New York Wills Need to Clearly State a Testator’s Estate Plan

by Jules M. Haas

Estate Planning Attorneys in Nassau and Westchester, as in all other New York Counties, are well aware that the documents they prepare for clients must have clearly worded provisions.

A Last Will is a testamentary statement as to where and how a decedent’s assets are to be disposed of. In its most fundamental form a Last Will can set forth a number of dispositions. There can be a statement that certain individuals or entities are to receive a specified property or a specified amount of money.

Additionally, the residue or balance of the estate can be disposed of in any number of ways such as by percentages to a number of recipients. Trusts that are created in the Will are called testamentary trusts. These trusts only come into being after the Will is admitted to probate and the trust is funded. InterVivos Trusts are created outside of a Will and can begin to function as soon as they are prepared.

A New York Will also contains provisions for the appointment of Executors, as well as Trustees of any trust created by the Will. Also, Guardians for minor children can be nominated in a Last Will. Beneficiaries and alternate beneficiaries that are named in the Will should be accurately identified by their relation to the decedent and their names should be correctly spelled.

The utmost care is required so that the Will provisions are clearly worded. Such clarity is essential so that the decedent’s intent can be carried out by his or her Executor and Trustee. Where provisions in a Will and/or Trust are confusing or ambiguous, Executors, Trustees, beneficiaries and the Court are left to try and decipher what the decedent really meant and desired regarding the disposition of property. If the interested parties cannot agree as to the document’s meaning then a Court must construe the intent of the testator. In a proceeding for the Construction of a Will the Court does not rewrite Will provisions. Instead, the Court attempts to carry out the intentions of the decedent. Construction proceedings can involve complex issues for probate lawyers and their clients who are Executors and estate beneficiaries.

A recent example of confusing language requiring Court clarification occurred in the case of Matter of Winifred Gooding Brice, decided by Surrogate Edward W. McCarthy III, (Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County) on December 13, 2011 and reported in the New York Law Journal on January 10, 2012.

In Gooding, the decedent had executed a Last Will which was followed by the decedent’s signing six Codicils. A Codicil is essentially an amendment to the original Will. A question of construction arose because there was a contradiction between two codicils concerning the time a certain trust was to terminate.

Gooding shows that in order to avoid inconsistencies between multiple Codicils and a Last Will, it would be preferable to rewrite and revise the entire Last Will and incorporate all of the modifications into a single document that would not be confusing. By re-doing the entire Will, estate planning and estate administration can be streamlined.

January 11, 2012

New York Guardianship Favors The Appointment of Family Members

by Jules M. Haas

Manhattan Guardianship of an incapacitated person, as well as proceedings throughout New York, requires a Court hearing and a determination that clear and convincing evidence has been presented that a Guardian is necessary. Article 81 of the New York Mental Hygiene Law (“MHL”), sets forth the substantive and procedural guidelines for the appointment of a property management guardian and a personal needs guardian.

Among the many considerations and determinations that the Court must make in these proceedings is the selection of the proper person or entity to act as Guardian. MHL Section 81.19, entitled “Eligibility as guardian,” provides the Court with some direction in selecting an appropriate Guardian.

As a general matter, appointment of family members of the incapacitated person is usually preferred. In many cases, the Petitioner in the proceeding is a close relative such as a child or a spouse. Typically there is a long history of family closeness and caring that the Court will recognize in making its selection.

However, despite this preferential treatment, family members can face obstacles to appointment. In many cases the Court may require that the Guardian file a Bond with the Court. A Bond is similar to an insurance policy. It is obtained from a surety company that insures that if the Guardian misappropriates any of the incapacitated person’s funds, the surety company will cover the loss. Unfortunately, sometimes a family member may not qualify to obtain a bond due to a poor credit history or criminal background.

Also, a Court may refuse to appoint a family member as a Guardian where there is a conflict of interest between the family member’s interests and those of the incapacitated person or other family members.

Another instance where a family member may not be appointed is where some family conflict or hard feelings exist between competing family members or between the prospective appointee and the incapacitated person. In a recent case entitled Matter of Ella C., decided by the Honorable Betsy Barros on December 14, 2011 (Supreme Court, Kings County) and reported in the New York Law Journal on January 12, 2012, the Court was presented with a petition filed by three of the four children of the alleged incapacitated person. Following a hearing the Court found that the appointment of a Guardian was necessary but did not appoint any of the children, each for various reasons, including improper handling of their mother’s financial affairs, animosity between them and their mother, and “mixed loyalties.”

Queens Guardianship attorneys and lawyers representing petitioners and families in Guardianship cases throughout New York, must be aware of the requirements to have a Guardian appointed and also the qualifications that are needed for someone to be selected by the Court. As discussed above, just being a family member may not be enough in all situations to be named by the Court as a property management or personal needs Guardian.

January 6, 2012

New York Guardianship and Estate Settlement Often Cross-Paths

by Jules M. Haas

New York Guardianship proceedings for incapacitated persons are governed by Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law (MHL). The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has discussed in numerous posts the powers and duties of a Court appointed Guardian.

In many instances, a petition for Guardianship is filed with the Court because the Alleged Incapacitated Person (“AIP”) appears to be the victim of physical or economic abuse. The Guardianship proceeding will require the appointment of a Court Evaluator and/or Attorney for the AIP. These appointees and the Court itself will review whether any wrongdoing is being perpetrated. Sometimes, a government agency called the New York State Mental Hygiene Legal Service is appointed to protect the AIP’s interests. MHL Section 81.29 entitled “Effect of the appointment on the incapacitated person” provides the Court broad powers to remedy situations where the AIP has been taken advantage of. For example, the Court can void a contract or a power of attorney entered into by the AIP if the Court finds that the AIP lacked capacity when such papers were signed.

Even though the statute gives the Guardianship Court broad powers to remedy wrongdoing, MHL Section 81.29(d) specifically provides that the Court cannot “invalidate or revoke a will or a codicil of an incapacitated person during the lifetime of such person.” Thus, if the AIP signs a Last Will at the time he or she is found to be incapacitated while still alive, any objection or Will Contest to the validity of the Will must wait until the AIP is deceased and the Will is offered for probate.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that a finding of incapacity in a Guardianship proceeding does not mean that a person lacked the testamentary capacity to execute a Last Will. MHL Section 81.29(b) specifically provides that “subject to subdivision (a), the appointment of a guardian shall not be conclusive evidence that the person lacks capacity for any other purpose, including the capacity to dispose of property by will”.

Since a Last Will cannot be challenged until a person dies, many issues involving the disposition of the AIP’s estate are fought over only after the AIP dies. Estate settlement and estate administration becomes the new battle ground for problems that could not be settled in the Guardianship.

The Courts clearly recognize that while the overlap of controversies may exist, the paradox of a finding of incapacity for Guardianship cannot forestall an incapacitated person’s ability to sign his or her Will.

This circumstance was clearly shown in a recent case entitled Matter of Biaggi, decided by Justice Alexander W. Hunter, Supreme Court, Bronx County, on November 10, 2011 and reported in the New York Law Journal on November 28, 2011. In Biaggi, objections were filed to the action of the Guardian for retaining an attorney to assist the incapacitated person with drafting and executing a new Last Will. The Court found that the Guardian acted appropriately and noted that “allegations of testamentary capacity and undue influence are matters that should be more appropriately be brought up, if necessary, post-mortem and not at this time before this Court.”