Estate litigators arguably see more probate contests than any other type of conflict. While the details are always unique, they almost always include allegations that someone unduly influenced the decedent to change his or her will to either disinherit, or favor, a particular person. These cases also often include an allegation — which is usually contested — that the purported influencer was in a “confidential relationship” with the decedent. The frequency of such claims beg the questions (1) what exactly is a “confidential relationship,” and (2) what is the practical benefit to an objectant in establishing that one existed? Jaclene D’Agostino addresses these questions in our latest entry.
Continue Reading What is a Confidential Relationship and How Does it Affect a Probate Contest?

In 2010, the Appellate Division, Second Department, made it clear in two decisions — Matter of Berk and Campbell v. Thomas — that principles of equity grounded in rules of forfeiture can adversely impact a surviving spouse’s entitlement to an elective share. The Second Department recently addressed the Berk matter again, specifically with respect to the issues to be determined and burdens of proof to be imposed at trial. Ilene Cooper discusses the decision in our latest entry.
Continue Reading Proof of Wrongdoing and the Right of Election

A recent decision of the Kings County Surrogate’s Court demonstrates the importance of thoroughly analyzing all aspects of a statute of limitations defense prior to making a dismissal motion. In Matter of Coiro, the court denied such a motion, determining that a turnover proceeding was timely. Notably, the parties disputed both the applicable limitations period and the date of the claim’s accrual. Side-stepping both those issues, the court determined that a statutory toll rendered the claim timely . Eric Penzer discusses the decision in our latest entry.
Continue Reading Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Turnover Proceeding as Time Barred

Many estate practitioners are familiar with contested matters in which a charity interested in the proceeding is cited, as is the Attorney General, and both the Attorney General and private counsel for the charity appear in the proceeding. In such cases, both the Attorney General and the charity’s counsel represent the charity. What happens, however, when the status and identity of the charitable beneficiary is less than certain? That was precisely the situation facing the New York County Surrogate’s Court in the probate contest involving the much-publicized estate of Huguette Clark. John Morken discusses this portion of the Clark case in our latest entry.
Continue Reading Representation of Charities by the Attorney General

While the Court of Appeals last year upheld the validity of contingency fee agreements in estate matters, particularly in litigation, where it approved contingency fees of over forty million dollars when the actual time spent was a fraction of that value, a recent New York County Surrogate’s Court case, Estate of Fanny Goldfarb, confirms that the size of an estate can still be a major factor in determining the reasonableness of a contingent fee, even though the services rendered and the result achieved were exemplary. Jack Barnosky discusses the decision in our latest post.
Continue Reading Contingency Fees – Size Matters

As the year draws to a close, I sometimes recall the stresses of final exam season from my law school days. In the spirit of reminiscence, I’ll pose a quick final-exam-like fact pattern:

Jane owned a parcel of real property in New Hyde Park, title to which she transferred in June 2002 to her irrevocable

…

This month’s blog post will address a recent decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, entered in In re Perelman, that helps reiterate and define the parameters of discovery proceedings. The case is interesting not only for its facts and the issues they presented, but for its litigants: Ronald Perelman, of Revlon and corporate raider…

A recent decision of the Richmond County Surrogate’s Court addressed a frequently litigated issue in Surrogate’s Court litigation – – whether the proposed or nominated fiduciary should be disqualified from serving in a fiduciary capacity on the grounds of “dishonesty” or “improvidence.” In the Estate of George Mathai a familiar dynamic was in play –…

In Matter of Conklin, 2015 NY Slip Op 25094 (Sur Ct, Nassau County 2015), the Nassau County Surrogate’s Court addressed, among other things, whether specifically bequeathed property sold by an attorney-in-fact prior to the decedent’s death, adeemed. The decedent’s will had specifically devised the subject property to his two children and first wife, with a direction that it be sold after his death and the proceeds divided among the three of them. But a sale prior to death meant that the proceeds would become part of the decedent’s residuary estate, of which one of his attorneys-in-fact was the sole beneficiary. Jaclene D’Agostino discusses the case in our latest entry.
Continue Reading Ademption Results from Attorney-in-Fact’s Sale of Specifically Bequeathed Asset

In Levien v Johnson, the New York County Surrogate’s Court recently enjoined the trustees of a testamentary trust from proceeding in Texas to challenge the adoptions of two adults, Parvin Johnson, Jr. and Kenneth Ives, by the grandsons of the Decedent, Arnold Levien. As the great-grandsons of the Decedent, Messrs. Johnson and Ives would be members of the class of remainder beneficiaries of the trust entitled to distributions. Hillary Frommer discusses the decision in our latest post.
Continue Reading Court Enjoins Trustees from Going to Texas for a “Second Bite at the Apple” to Stop Beneficiaries from Inheriting