In Matter of Feller, a contested probate proceeding that was decided last week in Monroe County, the Surrogate addressed typical objections pertaining to due execution, testamentary capacity, and undue influence. The decision provides a cohesive illustration of the standards and considerations that Surrogates routinely utilize in addressing these allegations. Jaclene D’Agostino discusses the case in this week’s entry.
Continue Reading Summary Judgment Granted, Dismissing Objections and Admitting Will to Probate
Probate
Court of Appeals: Extra Deposition Did Not Violate In Terrorem Clause
By Jaclene L. D'Agostino on
Posted in Probate
Last week, the Court of Appeals rendered a significant decision regarding the extent of discovery that may be conducted without triggering an in terrorem clause. In Matter of Singer, objections to probate were never filed. However, the issue presented was whether a beneficiary’s decision to depose the decedent’s prior attorney, a form of discovery not protected by the safe harbor provisions of EPTL 3-3.5 or SCPA 1404, triggered the two in terrorem clauses set forth in the propounded will. Jaclene D’Agostino discusses the case in this week’s blog entry.
Continue Reading Court of Appeals: Extra Deposition Did Not Violate In Terrorem Clause
Probate of a Lost Will
By Jaclene L. D'Agostino on
Posted in Probate
This week’s entry discusses the requirements to probate a will when the original instrument has been lost.
Continue Reading Probate of a Lost Will
The Due Execution of Wills
By Ilene S. Cooper on
Posted in Probate
To be admitted to probate, a will must be duly executed in accordance with statute. In this week’s blog entry, Ilene Cooper discusses how courts have applied and interpreted the due execution requirements.
Continue Reading The Due Execution of Wills
Discovery in Probate Contests
By Robert M. Harper on
Posted in Probate
Discovery in probate contests is generally limited to a specific time frame. This week’s entry discusses the governing rule, and situations in which it may be expanded.
Continue Reading Discovery in Probate Contests
Is Justice Delayed Justice Denied?
By Robert M. Harper on
Posted in Probate
Recent developments in the Martin Tankleff murder case have captivated court observers in New York and attracted the attention of national news media outlets. For the most part, the observers have focused their attention on issues of criminal law, like newly-discovered evidence and the reliability of allegedly false confessions. Yet, the case also has potential trusts and estates-related consequences.
This much we know: Mr. Tankleff’s parents were killed on September 7, 1988 (see People v Tankleff, 49 A.D.3d 160, 162-64 [2d Dep’t 2007]). After an investigation, the police arrested Mr. Tankleff for murdering his parents, prosecutors tried him for the murders, and a Suffolk County jury convicted him of the offenses (id.). In the days, months, and years that followed, Mr. Tankleff and his legal team launched an exhaustive campaign to overturn his convictions on the basis of newly-discovered evidence, which Mr. Tankleff asserted established his innocence (id.). The Appellate Division, Second Department, issued an Order vacating Mr. Tankleff’s judgments of conviction in December 2007, id. at 183, and prosecutors elected against retrying Mr. Tankleff in June 2008 (see Luis Perez, “AG won’t retry Tankleff – or any other suspects,” Newsday, June 30, 2008).